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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 8/4/2025. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 8/4/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of a typographical error “…an host vehicle…” which should be updated to instead state “…[ [ an ] ] a host vehicle…”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and claim 5 as currently presented states “…to reduction of the collision risk…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…to a reduction of the collision risk…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 and claim 5 as currently presented states “…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…[ [ a ] ] the time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…[ [ a ] ] the time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 and claim 5 as currently presented states “…a collision risk…the collision risk…a collision risk…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a collision risk…the collision risk…[ [ a ] ] the collision risk…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 1 and claim 5 as currently presented states “…a deceleration intention…a deceleration intention…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a deceleration intention…[ [ a ] ] the deceleration intention…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 2 as currently presented states “…a brake operation…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ a ] ] the brake operation…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “late” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “late” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner will interpret the claim as a driver incapable of producing a sufficient amount of braking pressure to a brake pedal at a desired point in time, the sufficient amount being an amount capable of decelerating the vehicle at an appropriate rate so as to avoid collision with an obstacle, according to [0051] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 4, the term “weak” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “weak” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner will interpret the claim as a driver incapable of producing a sufficient amount of braking pressure to a brake pedal, the sufficient amount being an amount capable of decelerating the vehicle at an appropriate rate so as to avoid collision with an obstacle, according to [0051] of the instant specification.
Regarding claims 1-4, the claim limitations “first brake operation tendency acquisition unit” and “second brake operation tendency acquisition unit” 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. Neither the claims nor the specification details the structure of the “first brake operation tendency acquisition unit” or the “second brake operation tendency acquisition unit”. At best, the specification details the units as being included in the ECU, therefore the Examiner will interpret the “first brake operation tendency acquisition unit” and “second brake operation tendency acquisition unit” as being generic modules within an ECU, but is not limited to this assumption (see at least [0024]). 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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundus et al. (US-2025/0222778; hereinafter Rundus) in view of Koppisetty et al. (US-2023/0005373; hereinafter Koppisetty).
Regarding claim 1, Rundus discloses a vehicle control device that acquires a relative relationship between a host vehicle and a target object existing in a traveling direction of the host vehicle and that is configured to be able to execute (see Rundus at least [0060] "The gap refers to the space between the two vehicles. If this inequality is true, then the user vehicle will, based on both vehicles' current speed, not collide with the lead vehicle. If the travel distance of the user vehicle is greater than or equal to the travel distance of the lead vehicle plus the gap between the vehicles, then a collision will occur."), when it is determined based on the acquired relative relationship that a collision risk between the host vehicle and the target object is equal to or higher than a predetermined level (see Rundus at least [0060] "The gap refers to the space between the two vehicles. If this inequality is true, then the user vehicle will, based on both vehicles' current speed, not collide with the lead vehicle. If the travel distance of the user vehicle is greater than or equal to the travel distance of the lead vehicle plus the gap between the vehicles, then a collision will occur."), vehicle control including brake assist control for assisting deceleration based on a brake operation by a driver of the host vehicle as vehicle control related to reduction of the collision risk (see Rundus at least [0042] "...Unlike traditional RB, in collision situations, DRB may decelerate at more appropriate levels that would not necessarily be as intense as AEB."), wherein:
the vehicle control device comprises a first brake operation tendency acquisition unit and a second brake operation tendency acquisition unit (see Rundus at least [0083] "FIG. 17 provides a block diagram illustrating one example of a vehicle 12. The vehicle 12 may include an electronic device 100 which may include one or more processors configured to perform logic and control operations as previously explained. A braking system 104 is shown which may be operatively connected to the electronic device 100..."), the first brake operation tendency acquisition unit acquiring a first brake operation tendency including at least one or both of a brake response tendency and a brake operation amount tendency (see Rundus at least [0082] "It is contemplated that methods may be modified based on results of testing DRB in real-life scenarios including with human subjects such as in simulated environments or through a naturalistic study including testing on how DRB effects driver foot behavior. Extra braking assistance provided to drivers could result in how hard drivers press on the brake pedal, which could result in changes as to what is considered a ‘panic brake’ for brake assist. It is further contemplated that such behavior may be taken into consideration in the determination of the dynamic regenerative braking.") as a brake operation characteristic of the driver with respect to the target object at a time (see Rundus at least [0041] "Target acceleration and time-to-collision (TTC) may be used as the variables that drive this concept. Exemplary requirements for the DRB model include a real-time safety distance/buffer, deceleration profile of user vehicle, and prediction of lead vehicle's travel distance. DRB may rely on forward detection systems such as computer vision, LiDAR and/or radar to provide the lead vehicle information to the system so that the appropriate level of real-time deceleration (RB) is being implemented." and [0079] "...The amount of regenerative braking applied remains dynamic from the time the driver releases the accelerator pedal to when the driver applies the brake pedal. Driver input may still be required if drastic changes to the time to collision equation were to occur, or if the braking required exceeds the limits of the amount of braking RB can provide. The target acceleration and the respective acceleration of the vehicle is updated every 0.01 seconds.") … and the second brake operation tendency acquisition unit acquiring, as a second brake operation tendency, a brake operation tendency for determining a deceleration intention of the driver with respect to the target object at a time (see Rundus at least [0081]-[0082] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal. It is contemplated that methods may be modified based on results of testing DRB in real-life scenarios including with human subjects such as in simulated environments or through a naturalistic study including testing on how DRB effects driver foot behavior. Extra braking assistance provided to drivers could result in how hard drivers press on the brake pedal, which could result in changes as to what is considered a ‘panic brake’ for brake assist. It is further contemplated that such behavior may be taken into consideration in the determination of the dynamic regenerative braking.") …
the vehicle control device facilitates activation of the brake assist control when a specific condition is met as compared with when the specific condition is not met (see Rundus at least [0081] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal."), the specific condition being met when it is determined based on the acquired first brake operation tendency that the driver is a driver having a low capability level for avoiding a collision risk with the target object and when it is determined based on the acquired second brake operation tendency that the brake operation by the driver at a time … is performed with a deceleration intention with respect to the target object (see Rundus at least [0081] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal.").
However, while Rundus discloses the operation of vehicle assistance techniques upon detecting a potential collision, the following is not explicitly detailed:
…a collision risk between the host vehicle and the target object is equal to or higher than a predetermined level…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level…
Koppisetty, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a collision risk between the host vehicle and the target object is equal to or higher than a predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0027] "...Such a risk can be compared to a defined collision risk threshold. A collision risk below such a threshold (e.g., as determined by the collision avoidance component 110) can comprise an acceptable risk, and a collision risk above such a threshold can comprise unacceptable risk (e.g., adjacent-lane traveling vehicle preventing a safe lane change).")…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0058]-[0059] "Turning now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated a scenario in which each of vehicles 602, 604, and 606 comprise a respective system 102, system 202, system 302, system 402, and/or system 502. It is noted that vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can be located in a defined geographic risk zone 906. According to an embodiment, the defined geographic risk zone 906 can be determined (e.g., by the artificial intelligence component 504) based on historical data (e.g., comprising an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions taken by one or more vehicles or an elevated rate of vehicle collision). In this regard, an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions or collisions can be determined based on a comparison of said historical data to a collision mitigation threshold or a collision threshold... In this regard, each of the vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can communicate with one another to share raw captured data (e.g., from the blind spot monitoring sensors 404), trajectory determinations or predictions of respective vehicles or other vehicles, collision mitigation actions undertaken, or other suitable information.")…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0058]-[0059] "Turning now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated a scenario in which each of vehicles 602, 604, and 606 comprise a respective system 102, system 202, system 302, system 402, and/or system 502. It is noted that vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can be located in a defined geographic risk zone 906. According to an embodiment, the defined geographic risk zone 906 can be determined (e.g., by the artificial intelligence component 504) based on historical data (e.g., comprising an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions taken by one or more vehicles or an elevated rate of vehicle collision). In this regard, an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions or collisions can be determined based on a comparison of said historical data to a collision mitigation threshold or a collision threshold... In this regard, each of the vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can communicate with one another to share raw captured data (e.g., from the blind spot monitoring sensors 404), trajectory determinations or predictions of respective vehicles or other vehicles, collision mitigation actions undertaken, or other suitable information.")…
…a time when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0058]-[0059] "Turning now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated a scenario in which each of vehicles 602, 604, and 606 comprise a respective system 102, system 202, system 302, system 402, and/or system 502. It is noted that vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can be located in a defined geographic risk zone 906. According to an embodiment, the defined geographic risk zone 906 can be determined (e.g., by the artificial intelligence component 504) based on historical data (e.g., comprising an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions taken by one or more vehicles or an elevated rate of vehicle collision). In this regard, an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions or collisions can be determined based on a comparison of said historical data to a collision mitigation threshold or a collision threshold... In this regard, each of the vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can communicate with one another to share raw captured data (e.g., from the blind spot monitoring sensors 404), trajectory determinations or predictions of respective vehicles or other vehicles, collision mitigation actions undertaken, or other suitable information.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as disclosed by Rundus with the determination of a high risk situation such as taught by Koppisetty with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of generating avoidance protocol based on historical data (see Koppisetty at least [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Rundus in view of Koppisetty teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundus in view of Koppisetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Puphal (US-2025/0100584).
Regarding claim 2, Rundus in view of Koppisetty teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle control device is configured to be able to further execute, in addition to the brake assist control, automatic brake control for applying a braking force to the host vehicle by activating a brake device of the host vehicle, even if the driver does not perform a brake operation, when it is determined that the collision risk is equal to or higher than the predetermined level as the vehicle control related to the reduction of the collision risk (see Rundus at least Fig 16, [0042] "DRB provides the ability for a spectrum of decelerations in crash avoidance. AEB is a system that intervenes based on binary control—it is either triggered on at one rate or not at all. If a forward crash is imminent, then AEB is triggered and the vehicle brakes as intensely, if there is no intervention by the driver in the form of service braking. With DRB, as a user drives their vehicle, DRB sensors may constantly look over the shoulder of the driver, and provide extra assistance during the time period in which the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator to the brake. Unlike traditional RB, in collision situations, DRB may decelerate at more appropriate levels that would not necessarily be as intense as AEB." and [0081] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal.");
…
the vehicle control device facilitates the activation of the automatic brake control when the determination unit determines that the driver is in the inattentive state as compared with when the determination unit does not determine that the driver is in the inattentive state (see Rundus at least Fig 16, [0042] "DRB provides the ability for a spectrum of decelerations in crash avoidance. AEB is a system that intervenes based on binary control—it is either triggered on at one rate or not at all. If a forward crash is imminent, then AEB is triggered and the vehicle brakes as intensely, if there is no intervention by the driver in the form of service braking. With DRB, as a user drives their vehicle, DRB sensors may constantly look over the shoulder of the driver, and provide extra assistance during the time period in which the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator to the brake. Unlike traditional RB, in collision situations, DRB may decelerate at more appropriate levels that would not necessarily be as intense as AEB." and [0081] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal.").
However, while Rundus recites the capability of detecting an insufficient driver response, and Koppisetty teaches sensors which track driver eye movement, neither reference explicitly discloses or teaches the following:
…the vehicle control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether the driver is in an inattentive state in which the driver is looking in a direction different from a direction of the target object…
Puphal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…the vehicle control device further comprises a determination unit that determines whether the driver is in an inattentive state in which the driver is looking in a direction different from a direction of the target object (see Puphal at least [0120] "In the example of FIGS. 12A and 12B it is assumed that the person driving the ego-agent 1 looks in the direction of the other agent 2 and, thus, is aware of the other agent 2. This is indicated by the visibility area 1a of the ego-agent 1 encompassing the other agent 2. In the example of FIG. 12A, it is assumed that the driver of the other agent 2 looks in the direction of the ego-agent 1, e.g., because the driver wants to change lane and, thus, looks to the back, and, thus, is aware of the ego-agent 1. This is indicated by the visibility area 2a of the other agent 2 encompassing the ego-agent 1 as shown in FIG. 12A. In the example of FIG. 12B, it is assumed that the driver of the other agent 2 does not look in the direction of the ego-agent 1 and, thus, is not aware of the ego-agent 1. This is indicated by the visibility area 2a of the other agent 2 that does not encompass the ego-agent 1 as shown in FIG. 12B.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle controls as taught by Rundus in view of Koppisetty with the determination of driver awareness according to driver eye direction such as taught by Puphal with a reasonable expectation of success so as to accurately recognize situations risk associated with a vehicle according to operator qualities (see Puphal at least [0005]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rundus in view of Koppisetty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US-2024/0262372).
Regarding claim 3, Rundus in view of Koppisetty teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the first brake operation tendency acquisition unit calculates a collision prediction time obtained by dividing a distance from the host vehicle to the target object at a time when the driver depresses a brake pedal by a relative speed (see Rundus at least [0062] "The target acceleration equation requires time as a variable. Time to collision yields the amount of time it will take for two vehicles to collide, based on their current position and speed. The time to collision equation below outlines a vehicle-driver combination i at instant t with respect to a lead vehicle i−1 [18]...") when the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0058]-[0059] "Turning now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated a scenario in which each of vehicles 602, 604, and 606 comprise a respective system 102, system 202, system 302, system 402, and/or system 502. It is noted that vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can be located in a defined geographic risk zone 906. According to an embodiment, the defined geographic risk zone 906 can be determined (e.g., by the artificial intelligence component 504) based on historical data (e.g., comprising an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions taken by one or more vehicles or an elevated rate of vehicle collision). In this regard, an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions or collisions can be determined based on a comparison of said historical data to a collision mitigation threshold or a collision threshold... In this regard, each of the vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can communicate with one another to share raw captured data (e.g., from the blind spot monitoring sensors 404), trajectory determinations or predictions of respective vehicles or other vehicles, collision mitigation actions undertaken, or other suitable information.") …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time to collision determination as disclosed by Rundus with the determination of a high risk situation such as further taught by Koppisetty with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while Rundus recites the capability of detecting an insufficient driver response, neither reference explicitly discloses or teaches the following:
…counts a number of times that the calculated collision prediction time is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as a number of times of delay, and determines whether the brake response tendency of the driver is late based on the counted number of times of delay.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…counts a number of times that the calculated collision prediction time is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold as a number of times of delay (see Park at least [0035]-[0038] "More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the driving analysis unit 110 detects a braking pattern through a brake pedal of the driver in order to analyze the driver's braking tendency. Here, the driver braking pattern means a vehicle deceleration generation pattern through measurement of a degree of stepping the brake pedal upon braking, and an average value is calculated by measuring the driver braking pattern several times to determine the driver's braking tendency. In this case, as illustrated in FIG. 3, a brake map according to a braking target pressure of pressurization of stepping the brake pedal is set for each level. Here, the braking target pressure may be set according to a depth degree (pressurization) of stepping the brake pedal, and a low speed, a medium speed, and a high speed of the vehicle. Meanwhile, the predetermined mode-specific map may include a brake map set to a deceleration level corresponding to a brake pedal travel, and an accelerator map set to an acceleration level corresponding to the acceleration pedal and the steering angle change rate. In this case, a braking pattern may be detected at a corresponding level by analyzing the driver's braking tendency in response to the set brake map."), and determines whether the brake response tendency of the driver is late based on the counted number of times of delay (see Park at least [0035]-[0038] "More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the driving analysis unit 110 detects a braking pattern through a brake pedal of the driver in order to analyze the driver's braking tendency. Here, the driver braking pattern means a vehicle deceleration generation pattern through measurement of a degree of stepping the brake pedal upon braking, and an average value is calculated by measuring the driver braking pattern several times to determine the driver's braking tendency. In this case, as illustrated in FIG. 3, a brake map according to a braking target pressure of pressurization of stepping the brake pedal is set for each level. Here, the braking target pressure may be set according to a depth degree (pressurization) of stepping the brake pedal, and a low speed, a medium speed, and a high speed of the vehicle. Meanwhile, the predetermined mode-specific map may include a brake map set to a deceleration level corresponding to a brake pedal travel, and an accelerator map set to an acceleration level corresponding to the acceleration pedal and the steering angle change rate. In this case, a braking pattern may be detected at a corresponding level by analyzing the driver's braking tendency in response to the set brake map.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insufficient driver response detection as disclosed by Rundus with a tracking of driver braking behaviors such as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success so as to control the vehicle according to recorded historical data (see Park at least [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Rundus in view of Koppisetty teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the first brake operation tendency acquisition unit acquires [brake information] of the driver (see Rundus at least [0082] "It is contemplated that methods may be modified based on results of testing DRB in real-life scenarios including with human subjects such as in simulated environments or through a naturalistic study including testing on how DRB effects driver foot behavior. Extra braking assistance provided to drivers could result in how hard drivers press on the brake pedal, which could result in changes as to what is considered a ‘panic brake’ for brake assist. It is further contemplated that such behavior may be taken into consideration in the determination of the dynamic regenerative braking.") during a period since the collision risk becomes equal to or higher than the predetermined level (see Koppisetty at least [0058]-[0059] "Turning now to FIG. 9, there is illustrated a scenario in which each of vehicles 602, 604, and 606 comprise a respective system 102, system 202, system 302, system 402, and/or system 502. It is noted that vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can be located in a defined geographic risk zone 906. According to an embodiment, the defined geographic risk zone 906 can be determined (e.g., by the artificial intelligence component 504) based on historical data (e.g., comprising an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions taken by one or more vehicles or an elevated rate of vehicle collision). In this regard, an elevated rate of collision mitigation actions or collisions can be determined based on a comparison of said historical data to a collision mitigation threshold or a collision threshold... In this regard, each of the vehicles 602, 604, and 606 can communicate with one another to share raw captured data (e.g., from the blind spot monitoring sensors 404), trajectory determinations or predictions of respective vehicles or other vehicles, collision mitigation actions undertaken, or other suitable information.") until the host vehicle stops or decelerates to a predetermined low vehicle speed range (see Koppisetty at least [0063] "...At 1106, if a lane change can be safely executed (e.g., as determined by the collision avoidance component 110) (e.g., Y at 1106), the process can proceed to 1112, at which data relating to the safe lane change (e.g., vehicle speed, vehicle trajectory, distances between vehicles, location information, corresponding adjacent-lane traveling vehicle information, or other suitable information) is stored (e.g., for further analysis by an artificial intelligence component 504 such as for model generation and determination, prediction, and/or warning improvement). If a lane change cannot be safety executed (e.g., N at 1106), the process can proceed to 1108. At 1108, an alert signal associated with the collision can be generated (e.g., by the collision avoidance component 110). At 1110, a collision avoidance action as described herein can be executed (e.g., by the collision avoidance component 110). At 1112, data (e.g., vehicle speed, vehicle trajectory, distances between vehicles, location information, corresponding adjacent-lane traveling vehicle information, or other suitable information) associated with the alert and/or collision avoidance action can be stored (e.g., for further analysis by an artificial intelligence component 504 such as for model generation and determination, prediction, and/or warning improvement)."), and determines whether the brake operation amount tendency of the driver is weak (see Rundus at least [0081] "Another advantage of DRB is it does not interfere with other ADAS. FIG. 16 presents a model that shows what ADAS system is necessary based on the situation. AEB can completely take over the braking process if the driver's response is insufficient or if there is no driver response, regardless of the foot behavior of the driver. The kinematic safety advantage imparted by DRB is significant during the time period the driver transfers their foot from the accelerator pedal to the brake pedal. Brake assist is activated if a panic brake is detected. This means the advantage these two systems provide do not cross over. DRB simply begins the braking assistance as soon as the driver releases the accelerator pedal.") ...
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle braking information as disclosed by Rundus with the determination of a high risk situation such as further taught by Koppisetty with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
However, while Rundus recognizes different braking amounts during vehicle control as well as the capability of detecting an insufficient driver response, neither reference explicitly discloses or teaches the following:
…a brake operation amount of the driver…
…a maximum value of the acquired brake operation amount…
Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…a brake operation amount of the driver (see Park at least [0035] "More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the driving analysis unit 110 detects a braking pattern through a brake pedal of the driver in order to analyze the driver's braking tendency. Here, the driver braking pattern means a vehicle deceleration generation pattern through measurement of a degree of stepping the brake pedal upon braking, and an average value is calculated by measuring the driver braking pattern several times to determine the driver's braking tendency.")…
…a maximum value of the acquired brake operation amount (see Park at least Fig 3 and [0035]-[0036] "More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the driving analysis unit 110 detects a braking pattern through a brake pedal of the driver in order to analyze the driver's braking tendency. Here, the driver braking pattern means a vehicle deceleration generation pattern through measurement of a degree of stepping the brake pedal upon braking, and an average value is calculated by measuring the driver braking pattern several times to determine the driver's braking tendency. In this case, as illustrated in FIG. 3, a brake map according to a braking target pressure of pressurization of stepping the brake pedal is set for each level. Here, the braking target pressure may be set according to a depth degree (pressurization) of stepping the brake pedal, and a low speed, a medium speed, and a high speed of the vehicle.")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insufficient driver response detection as disclosed by Rundus with a measurement of braking amounts such as taught by Park with a reasonable expectation of success so as to properly categorize what constitutes sufficient braking amounts according to different driving modes established by the driver (see Park at least [0004]-[0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shami (US-2018/0222473) teaches the determination of a collision risk between two separate entities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights