Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-10-04)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:
1\. An apparatus for preventing car collision, the apparatus comprising:
a communication unit configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle or a camera; and
a processor operatively connected to the communication unit, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain information about a vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle acquired by the preceding vehicle;
calculate a deceleration amount for preventing a collision with the stopped vehicle
based on the information about the stopped vehicle;
predict a preset event related to the preceding vehicle based on a change in a position of the preceding vehicle; and
control an autonomous driving vehicle based on the deceleration amount according to a prediction result regarding the preset event.
2\. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, when it is not possible to obtain, from the preceding vehicle, the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle, the processor obtains the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle detected by one or more cameras installed on a road on which the autonomous driving 0 vehicle is traveling.
3\. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located.
4\. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor detects the change in the position of the preceding vehicle and predicts the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position of the preceding vehicle.
5\. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the preset event includes an event where one side of the preceding vehicle is positioned at a point in an adjacent lane of either side of a lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling, the point being separated by a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle from any one lane marking of a corresponding side of the lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.
6\. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located.
7\. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor detects the change in the position of the preceding vehicle and predicts the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position of the preceding vehicle.
8\. A method for preventing car collision, the method comprising: obtaining information about a vehicle stopped in front of a preceding vehicle acquired by the preceding vehicle;
calculating a deceleration amount for preventing a collision with the stopped vehicle based on the obtained information about the stopped vehicle;
predicting a preset event related to the preceding vehicle based on a change in a
position of the preceding vehicle; and
controlling an autonomous driving vehicle based on the deceleration amount according to a prediction result regarding the preset event.
9\. The method of claim 8, further comprising obtaining the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle detected by one or more cameras installed on a road on which the autonomous driving vehicle is traveling when it is not possible to obtain, from the preceding vehicle, the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle.

10\. The method of claim 9, wherein the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located.

11\. The method of claim 9, wherein the predicting of the preset event related to the preceding vehicle comprises:
detecting the change in the position of the preceding vehicle; and
predicting the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position
of the preceding vehicle.
12\. The method of claim 11, wherein the preset event includes an event where one side of the preceding vehicle is positioned at a point in an adjacent lane of either side of a lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling, the point being separated by a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle from any one lane marking of a corresponding side of the lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.

13\. The method of claim 8, wherein the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located.

14\. The method of claim 8, wherein the predicting of the preset event related to the preceding vehicle comprises:
detecting the change in the position of the preceding vehicle; and
predicting the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position of the preceding vehicle. DB1/ 131678551.1-25- DB1/ 131678551.1-26- DB1/ 131678551.1-27- DB1/ 131678551.1-28- 2 5 10 15 20 25

OFFICE ACTION:
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/20/2022. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Wi-Fi,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 2022/0332319 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses the following limitations:
“An apparatus for preventing car collision, the apparatus comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle or a camera.” (Park ¶ 28 discloses “a vehicle including: a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicle.” As shown in Park FIG. 7B, the plurality of vehicles can include a second vehicle 2 that travels in front of the ego vehicle 1. This at least teaches a communication unit configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle as claimed.)
“and a processor operatively connected to the communication unit.” (Park ¶¶ 150 and 219: “the cruise control device may correspond to a second controller, and may communicate with … a communicator 250,” where “The second controller 280 may be implemented as a single processor.”)
“wherein the processor is configured to: obtain information about a vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle acquired by the preceding vehicle.” (Park FIG. 7B shows a third vehicle 3 in front of the second vehicle 2. Further, Park ¶ 274 discloses that “The vehicle may also determine whether the third vehicle is in a stationary state from the travel information and position information of the third vehicle received by the communicator 250.”)
“calculate a deceleration amount for preventing a collision with the stopped vehicle based on the information about the stopped vehicle.” (Park ¶ 275: “As shown in FIG. 7B, the vehicle may determine whether there is an obstacle that is stopped in the travelling path, and upon determining that there is an obstacle that is stopped in the path, acquire a target deceleration based on position information of the obstacle in the stationary state and the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, and control deceleration and braking based on the acquired target deceleration.”)
“predict a preset event related to the preceding vehicle based on a change in a position of the preceding vehicle.” (Park ¶¶ 262-263: “as shown in FIG. 7A, the vehicle may, upon determining that the second vehicle 2 is not detected through the obstacle detector 220, determine that the path of the second vehicle 2 is suddenly changed (cut out). The sudden path change may include a state in which the distance to the obstacle acquired based on obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector changes to a degree greater than or equal to a reference distance within a predetermined time.”)
“and control an autonomous driving vehicle based on the deceleration amount according to a prediction result regarding the preset event.” (Park ¶¶ 267-268: “the vehicle decelerates and performs braking while maintaining the cruise control mode based on the travel information of the third vehicle in front of the vehicle during execution of the cruise control mode, so that the cruise control mode is prevented from being deactivated, thereby eliminating a hassle of the driver in resetting the cruise control mode. As described above, even when the first vehicle 1 controls acceleration because the second vehicle 2 travelling in front of the first vehicle departs from the front of the first vehicle 1, the first vehicle 1 obtains the amount of acceleration in consideration of the travel information of the third vehicle 3 travelling in front of the second vehicle 2, so that the first vehicle 1 is prevented from colliding with the third vehicle 3.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the communication unit being “configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle or a camera” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only communicating with a preceding vehicle has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Grace et al. (US 2021/0304607 A1), hereinafter referred to as Grace.
Regarding claim 2:
Park discloses “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein, when it is not possible to obtain, from the preceding vehicle, the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle, the processor obtains the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle detected by one or more cameras installed on a road on which the autonomous driving vehicle is traveling.” However, Grace does teach this limitation. (Grace ¶ 69 discloses that data can be obtained about a static obstacle such as a bus 610. Further, Grace ¶ 86: “Turning back to the step 1006, upon negative determination in the step 1006 (e.g., when it is determined that there is no perception unit X in the vicinity of AV1 and/or when it is determined that there is no perception unit X that is capable of providing information indicative of the environment surrounding AV1), the method 1000 may proceed with a step 1016 that includes the vehicle management system 140 determining whether a further perception unit X capable of obtaining information indicative of the environment surrounding AV1 can be deployed.” Also, Grace ¶¶ 33 and 56-57: “the sensor suite 120 may include a camera 210,” and “The sensor suite 520 may be substantially similar to the sensor suite 120 of the AV 110… The perception analysis module [530] may be configured to process the perception data gathered by the sensor suite 520 of the infrastructure object 150.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Park by using infrastructure image data when a vehicle perception unit is not capable of providing information to the autonomous vehicle as is taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Grace ¶¶ 84-85 teach that with this modification, the autonomous vehicle can adjust its driving strategy, resulting in safer behavior.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Park and Grace teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Grace further teaches “wherein the information about the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located.” (Grace ¶ 69: “with reference to the setting shown in FIG. 6, the complexity score computed based on the sensor data of the AV 110b may be indicative of … the lane direction of the bus 610.” This at least teaches the information including “information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located” as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 3, consistent with the specification, the stopped vehicle information including “at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Park by obtaining information about which lane the obstacle is located in as is taught by Grace, because modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Obtaining data indicative of a lane in which an obstacle is located would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the vehicle collaborative perception system of Grace or whether integrated into the advanced driver assistance system of Park. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that identifying a lane of an obstacle would be beneficial since it would help the vehicle to avoid colliding with the obstacle.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 13:
Claims 6, 10, and 13 are each rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Grace as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Rajab et al. (US 2019/0329777 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rajab.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Park and Grace teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the processor detects the change in the position of the preceding vehicle and predicts the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position of the preceding vehicle.” However, Rajab does teach this limitation. (Rajab ¶ 5: “The proximate vehicle data in the set of proximate vehicles is compared to a prediction model to calculate a predictive increment of kinematic data.” Also, Rajab ¶ 47: “measured data may be tracked for proximate vehicles such that the measured data can be used to generate current kinematic data (e.g., position, velocity, and acceleration) that reflects the current motion of proximate vehicles.” Further, Rajab ¶ 50: “The identification module 114 may additionally identify one or more lane change indicators that indicate that a proximate vehicle may be about to attempt a lane change.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Grace by using a model to identify a position change and a predicted lane change of a nearby vehicle as taught by Rajab with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Rajab ¶¶ 1-2 teach that this modification helps the host vehicle avoid collisions with surrounding vehicles.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 4 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Grace and Rajab as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0247417 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kato.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Park, Grace, and Rajab teaches “The apparatus of claim 4,” and Rajab further teaches “wherein the preset event includes an event where one side of the preceding vehicle is positioned at a point in an adjacent lane of either side of a lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.” (Rajab ¶ 50: “The identification module 114 may additionally identify one or more lane change indicators that indicate that a proximate vehicle may be about to attempt a lane change.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Grace by predicting that a nearby vehicle will move into an adjacent lane as taught by Rajab with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Rajab ¶¶ 1-2 teach that this modification helps the host vehicle avoid collisions with surrounding vehicles.
The combination of Park, Grace, and Rajab does not specifically teach “the point being separated by a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle from any one lane marking of a corresponding side of the lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.” However, Kato does teach this limitation. (Kato ¶ 60: “the calculation unit 54 determines whether the lane change is completed. For example, in a case where a half or more of the host vehicle 10 in a vehicle width direction is positioned in the adjacent lane 78, the calculation unit 54 can determine that the lane change is completed.” This teaches the claim limitation since half the width of the vehicle is “a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle” as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park, Grace, and Rajab by using a threshold vehicle width such as half the vehicle width when predicting a lane change occurrence as taught by Kato, because this amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a threshold width when identifying a lane change occurrence would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the vehicle control system of Kato or whether integrated into the advanced driver assistance system that is disclosed by the combination of Park, Grace, and Rajab. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a vehicle is unlikely to cross halfway into an adjacent lane unless it intends to change lanes, and that using a threshold vehicle width would provide an objective, quantifiable measure of lane changing that could easily be utilized by an autonomous vehicle system.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 5 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Rajab et al. (US 2019/0329777 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14:
Claims 7 and 14 are each rejected using the same rationale applied to claim 4 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (JP 2004-178239 A) p. 3 discloses a system in which a roadside surveillance camera can detect a stopped vehicle and send a warning message to other vehicles that may not otherwise be able to see the stopped vehicle.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
Introduction
Upon entry, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13 and 15-22 are pending in this application, of which claims 1 and 8 are independent. By this response, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, and 12-13 are amended, and claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer. New claims 15- 22 have been added. All amendments made to the claims are fully supported by the specification as originally filed, for example, by Fig. 2B, paragraphs 0045-47 and 0063-0064, and the original claims. Hence, no new matter has been introduced.
The arguments and contentions presented herein should not be construed as any acquiescence or agreement by Applicant with the reasoning stated in the Office Action regardless of whether or not the following remarks specifically address any particular argument or contention from the Office Action. Furthermore, although certain distinctions between the claims of the present application and the cited references are addressed below, these distinctions are not necessarily exhaustive.
Reconsideration of this application for allowance of all pending claims is hereby respectfully requested in view of the amendments to the claims and following remarks.
Obj
ections to the S
p
ecification
SM, or ® following the term. To obviate this objection, paragraphs 0022, 0023, and 0081 of the application-as-filed are amended to replace the term "Wi-Fi" with --Wi-Fi*--.
Applicant believes that these amendments are fully responsive to the Examiner's concerns. Withdrawal of the objection to the disclosure is, therefore, respectfully solicited.
Claim Re
j
ections Under 35 U.S.C.
&&
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0332319 A1, hereinafter "Park").
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Grace et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0304607 Al, hereinafter "Grace").
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Grace as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of Rajab et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0329777 Al, hereinafter "Rajab").
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Grace and Rajab as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0247417 Al, hereinafter "Kato").
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Rajab.
These rejections are traversed for the following reasons.
Without acquiescing to the merits of these rejections, and solely in the interest of expediting prosecution, independent claim 1 is amended to incorporate subject matter from dependent claim
4 and additional features, as shown below (emphasis added):
the processor detects the change in the position
of the preceding vehicle
and predicts occurrence of the preset event using an event prediction model based
on the detected change in the position
of the preceding vehicle,
and
the event prediction model is trained
based on information related to the
detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle
using a machine learning
algorithm.
In the rejection of claim 4 (subject matter of which has been incorporated into claim 1), the Examiner admits that Park and Grace do not teach "the processor detects the change in the position of the preceding vehicle and predicts the preset event using a preset model based on the change in the position of the preceding vehicle" of the claim, but relies on Rajab as allegedly making up for the admitted deficiencies of Park and Grace. It is respectfully submitted that Rajab does not teach or suggest the amended recitations of claim 1.
Rajab's prediction model is merely "a lookup table based on naturalistic behavior data" (claim 7) on relationships between "the velocity differential between the following vehicle 208 and the first preceding vehicle 210" and "the spacing between the following vehicle 208 and the first preceding vehicle 210" (see paragraphs 0062-0063) for "identifying a potential lane change location and receiving proximate vehicle data associated with
proximate vehicles"
(underline added, see paragraph 0005). Rajab discloses "[t]he prediction plots 400 and 410-460 are illustrative of the data binning and data fit estimation being used to predict a kinematic data at
predictive increments, however, the data may be used as a look-up table or other accessible data form" (see paragraph 0062). That is, as illustrated in Fig. 2 of Rajab (reproduced below with annotation), Rajab's model is a prediction model of a potential lane change or cut-in
of
a
p
roximate vehicle
(on lane 202) to a lane (204) on which the following vehicle 208 and the first preceding vehicle 210 are located, rather than "change in the position of the
precedin
g
vehicle
(to an adjacent lane)" (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1.
I
I
I
Fig. 2 of Rajab (left, annotated) and Fig. 2B of the present application (right, annotated)
On the other hand, as illustrated in Fig. 2B of the present application (reproduced above with annotation) showing one exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a processor may detect a change in a position of a preceding vehicle 240 and predict occurrence of a preset event (e.g., a sudden lane change of a preceding vehicle due to a vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle having stopped) using an event prediction model based on the detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle 240. Here, the event prediction model may be trained based on information related to the detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle 240 using a machine learning algorithm.
In addition, the data plots in Figs. 4A-4G of Rajab merely show relative
velocity
data between the following vehicle 208 and the first preceding vehicle 210 and the space therebetween, but do
not
show
position
change data of the proximate vehicle 206. Therefore, Rajab also fails to
teach "predicts occurrence of the preset event using an event prediction model based on the detected
change in the position
of the preceding vehicle" (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, Rajab discloses, at best, "the prediction model may be based on simulated data or naturalistic data ... may be based on second-by-second vehicle trajectory data from a Verkehr In Stadten-Simulations model (VISSIM) freeway network" (see paragraph 0060). However, such a simulation software package that Rajab discloses, e.g., VISSIM, does not satisfy
"the event prediction model is trained
based on information related to the detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle
using a machine
l
earnin
g alg
orithm"
(emphasis added), as recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing aspects of Rajab, it is respectfully submitted that Rajab does not teach or suggest the aforementioned features of claim 1, and therefore fails to cure the admitted deficiencies of Park and Grace.
Kato, which is cited for allegedly teaching "the point being separated by a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle from any one lane marking of a corresponding side of the lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling" of claim 5, does not remedy the aforementioned Park, Grace, and Rajab.
Based on all the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach or suggest each and every feature in the particular combination embodied by claim 1. "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, claim 1 and the claims dependent thereupon are allowable over the prior art of record.
Independent claim 8 is directed to a method for preventing car collision. While of different scope than claim 1, independent claim 8, as amended, includes recitations substantially similar to those argued above in relation to claim 1. Hence, claim 8 and the claims dependent thereupon are allowable over the cited prior art for at least reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant therefore submits that the rejections of the claims are overcome and respectfully requests that the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 be withdrawn.
New Claims
Dependent claims 15-22 are added. Support for these claims can be found in, e.g., paragraphs 0046-47 and 0063-0064 of the application-as-filed. No new matter is added. Separate from dependency from claim 1 or claim 8, none of the cited references teaches or suggests subject matter of claims 15-22, and claims 15-22 are allowable over the cited art.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/02/2025. Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 have been canceled, and new claims 15-22 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-22 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 01/02/2025 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 01/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding specification objection:
Applicant has argued that the specification objection has been overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0332319 A1) in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (US 2021/0078570 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shalev.
Regarding claim 1:
Park discloses the following limitations:
“An apparatus for preventing car collision, the apparatus comprising: a communication unit configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle or a camera.” (Park ¶ 28 discloses “a vehicle including: a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicle.” As shown in Park FIG. 7B, the plurality of vehicles can include a second vehicle 2 that travels in front of the ego vehicle 1. This at least teaches a communication unit configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle as claimed.)
“and a processor operatively connected to the communication unit.” (Park ¶¶ 150 and 219: “the cruise control device may correspond to a second controller, and may communicate with … a communicator 250,” where “The second controller 280 may be implemented as a single processor.”)
“wherein the processor is configured to: obtain information about a third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle acquired by the preceding vehicle.” (Park FIG. 7B shows a third vehicle 3 in front of the second vehicle 2. Further, Park ¶ 274 discloses that “The vehicle may also determine whether the third vehicle is in a stationary state from the travel information and position information of the third vehicle received by the communicator 250.”)
“calculate a deceleration amount for preventing a collision with the third vehicle based on the information about the third vehicle.” (Park ¶ 275: “As shown in FIG. 7B, the vehicle may determine whether there is an obstacle that is stopped in the travelling path, and upon determining that there is an obstacle that is stopped in the path, acquire a target deceleration based on position information of the obstacle in the stationary state and the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, and control deceleration and braking based on the acquired target deceleration.”)
“predict a preset event related to the preceding vehicle based on a change in a position of the preceding vehicle.” (Park ¶¶ 262-263: “as shown in FIG. 7A, the vehicle may, upon determining that the second vehicle 2 is not detected through the obstacle detector 220, determine that the path of the second vehicle 2 is suddenly changed (cut out). The sudden path change may include a state in which the distance to the obstacle acquired based on obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector changes to a degree greater than or equal to a reference distance within a predetermined time.”)
“and control an autonomous driving vehicle based on the deceleration amount according to a prediction result regarding the preset event.” (Park ¶¶ 267-268: “the vehicle decelerates and performs braking while maintaining the cruise control mode based on the travel information of the third vehicle in front of the vehicle during execution of the cruise control mode, so that the cruise control mode is prevented from being deactivated, thereby eliminating a hassle of the driver in resetting the cruise control mode. As described above, even when the first vehicle 1 controls acceleration because the second vehicle 2 travelling in front of the first vehicle departs from the front of the first vehicle 1, the first vehicle 1 obtains the amount of acceleration in consideration of the travel information of the third vehicle 3 travelling in front of the second vehicle 2, so that the first vehicle 1 is prevented from colliding with the third vehicle 3.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the communication unit being “configured to communicate with a preceding vehicle or a camera” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only communicating with a preceding vehicle has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
The following limitations are not specifically disclosed by Park, but are taught by Shalev:
“wherein the processor detects the change in the position of the preceding vehicle and predicts occurrence of the preset event using an event prediction model based on the detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle.” (Shalev ¶ 189: “If the distance between the leading vehicle's instantaneous position and the look-ahead point varies during the specific period of time, and the cumulative sum of variation exceeds a predetermined threshold (for example, 0.3 to 0.4 meters on a straight road, 0.7 to 0.8 meters on a moderately curvy road, and 1.3 to 1.7 meters on a road with sharp curves), processing unit 110 may determine that the leading vehicle is likely changing lanes.” The leading vehicle changing lanes reads on the “preset event” as claimed.)
“and wherein the event prediction model is trained based on information related to the detected change in the position of the preceding vehicle using a machine learning algorithm.” (Shalev ¶ 190: “At step 584, processing unit 110 may determine whether or not leading vehicle 200 is changing lanes based on the analysis performed at step 582. … the analysis may make use of trained system (e.g., a machine learning or deep learning system), which may, for example, estimate a future path ahead of a current location of a vehicle based on an image captured at the current location.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Park by using a trained machine learning model to predict a lane change of the preceding vehicle based on a detected change in its position as taught by Shalev with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Shalev ¶ 387 teaches that this modification “may help ensure that from a planning perspective there will be no accident of the AV's own responsibility.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using a machine learning model to predict a preceding vehicle’s lane change would help automate the process and allow the host vehicle to brake sooner and less sharply in response to the predicted lane change.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Park and Shalev teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Park further teaches “wherein the third vehicle includes a vehicle that is stopped in front of the preceding vehicle.” (Park ¶ 274: “The vehicle may also determine whether the third vehicle is in a stationary state from the travel information and position information of the third vehicle received by the communicator 250.”)
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 15 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shalev as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Grace et al. (US 2021/0304607 A1), hereinafter referred to as Grace.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Park and Shalev teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein, when it is not possible to obtain, from the preceding vehicle, the information about the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle, the processor obtains the information about the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle detected by one or more cameras installed on a road on which the autonomous driving vehicle is traveling.” However, Grace does teach this limitation. (Grace ¶ 69 discloses that data can be obtained about a static obstacle such as a bus 610. Further, Grace ¶ 86: “Turning back to the step 1006, upon negative determination in the step 1006 (e.g., when it is determined that there is no perception unit X in the vicinity of AV1 and/or when it is determined that there is no perception unit X that is capable of providing information indicative of the environment surrounding AV1), the method 1000 may proceed with a step 1016 that includes the vehicle management system 140 determining whether a further perception unit X capable of obtaining information indicative of the environment surrounding AV1 can be deployed.” Also, Grace ¶¶ 33 and 56-57: “the sensor suite 120 may include a camera 210,” and “The sensor suite 520 may be substantially similar to the sensor suite 120 of the AV 110… The perception analysis module [530] may be configured to process the perception data gathered by the sensor suite 520 of the infrastructure object 150.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev by using infrastructure image data when a vehicle perception unit is not capable of providing information to the autonomous vehicle as is taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Grace ¶¶ 84-85 teach that with this modification, the autonomous vehicle can adjust its driving strategy, resulting in safer behavior.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Park, Shalev, and Grace teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” and Grace further teaches “wherein the information about the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle includes at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle is located.” (Grace ¶ 69: “with reference to the setting shown in FIG. 6, the complexity score computed based on the sensor data of the AV 110b may be indicative of … the lane direction of the bus 610.” This at least teaches the information including “information about a lane in which the vehicle stopped in front of the preceding vehicle is located” as claimed.)
Note that under the BRI of claim 3, consistent with the specification, the stopped vehicle information including “at least one piece of information among the group of information about a distance between the preceding vehicle and the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle and information about a lane in which the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle is located” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “information about a lane in which the third vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle is located” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev by obtaining information about which lane the obstacle is located in as is taught by Grace, because modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Obtaining data indicative of a lane in which an obstacle is located would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the vehicle collaborative perception system of Grace or whether integrated into the advanced driver assistance system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that identifying a lane of an obstacle would be beneficial since it would help the vehicle to avoid colliding with the obstacle.
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 13:
Claims 6, 10, and 13 are each rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shalev as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 2020/0247417 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kato.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Park and Shalev teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Shalev further teaches “wherein the preset event includes an event where one side of the preceding vehicle is positioned at a point in an adjacent lane of either side of a lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.” (Shalev ¶ 190: “processing unit 110 may determine whether or not leading vehicle 200 is changing lanes.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Park by predicting that a leading vehicle will move into an adjacent lane as taught by Shalev, because this modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Predicting whether the leading vehicle is changing lanes would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the vehicle navigation system of Shalev or whether integrated into the advanced driver assistance system of Park. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the importance of detecting a lane change of the preceding vehicle in order to prevent collisions with the preceding vehicles or other obstacles in the road.
The combination of Park and Shalev does not specifically teach “the point being separated by a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle from any one lane marking of a corresponding side of the lane in which the preceding vehicle is traveling.” However, Kato does teach this limitation. (Kato ¶ 60: “the calculation unit 54 determines whether the lane change is completed. For example, in a case where a half or more of the host vehicle 10 in a vehicle width direction is positioned in the adjacent lane 78, the calculation unit 54 can determine that the lane change is completed.” This teaches the claim limitation since half the width of the vehicle is “a distance exceeding 1/3 of a total width of the preceding vehicle” as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev by using a threshold vehicle width such as half the vehicle width when predicting a lane change occurrence as taught by Kato, because this amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a threshold width when identifying a lane change occurrence would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the vehicle control system of Kato or whether integrated into the advanced driver assistance system that is disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a vehicle is unlikely to cross halfway into an adjacent lane unless it intends to change lanes, and that using a threshold vehicle width would provide an objective, quantifiable measure of lane changing that could easily be utilized by an autonomous vehicle system.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 5 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shalev as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Schmudderich et al. (US 2013/0054106 A1), hereinafter referred to as Schmudderich.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Park and Shalev teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” and Park further teaches “wherein the processor performs deceleration control of the autonomous driving vehicle based on the deceleration amount, at a point in time at which the processor determines that the preset event will occur based on the prediction result of the event prediction model.”
The combination of Park and Shalev does not specifically teach to perform deceleration control “before a point in time at which the preset event actually occurs.” However, this limitation is taught by Schmudderich. (Schmudderich ¶ 7: “the invention targets at predicting the target object's movement behavior before it actually performs a cutting-in or cutting-out maneuver. The prediction allows the host vehicle to either decelerate earlier and thus longer preventing under-runs of the safety distance or to accelerate earlier and thus allow for quicker overtaking process, or both.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev by allowing the host vehicle to decelerate before the preceding vehicle performs its lane change maneuver as taught by Schmudderich with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Schmudderich ¶ 7 teaches that this allows the host vehicle to decelerate earlier and longer to prevent coming within an unsafe distance of the preceding vehicle.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 16 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shalev as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Xue et al. (US 2022/0375349 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xue.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Park and Shalev teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the processor predicts that the preset event will occur based on data regarding a probability of the occurrence of the preset event generated by the trained event prediction model.” However, Xue does teach this limitation. (Xue ¶ 5 discloses “receiving a velocity and a position of the target vehicle; respectively obtaining, based on the velocity and the position of the target vehicle, a first lane-changing probability and a second lane-changing probability of the target vehicle by using a first machine learning model and a second machine learning model; and determining a possibility of lane changing of the target vehicle based on the first lane-changing probability and the second lane-changing probability.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Park and Shalev by predicting a probability of a preceding vehicle changing lanes as taught by Xue with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Xue ¶ 3 teaches that a preceding vehicle changing lanes “poses a significant threat to road traffic safety. Therefore, the prediction of a lane-changing intention of vehicles on two sides of a present vehicle on a road can effectively prevent traffic incidents from happening and improve the driving safety.”
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 18 above, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20220332319A1: Claims:
An advanced driver assist system (ADAS) for performing cruise control in a first vehicle, the ADAS comprising: a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicles; an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle in a surrounding and output obstacle information about the detected obstacle; and a controller configured to: acquire distance information about a distance to a second vehicle travelling in the surrounding of the first vehicle among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode, acquire travel information and position information of a third vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the second vehicle based on information received through the communicator, and controlling acceleration and deceleration based on the distance information with respect to the second vehicle, the travel information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle.
a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicles;
an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle in a surrounding and output obstacle information about the detected obstacle; and
a controller configured to: acquire distance information about a distance to a second vehicle travelling in the surrounding of the first vehicle among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode, acquire travel information and position information of a third vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the second vehicle based on information received through the communicator, and controlling acceleration and deceleration based on the distance information with respect to the second vehicle, the travel information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle.
acquire distance information about a distance to a second vehicle travelling in the surrounding of the first vehicle among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode,
acquire travel information and position information of a third vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the second vehicle based on information received through the communicator, and
controlling acceleration and deceleration based on the distance information with respect to the second vehicle, the travel information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle.
The ADAS of claim 1 , wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the second vehicle has departed from a travelling path based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector; and upon determining that the second vehicle has departed from the travelling path, control acceleration and deceleration based on the travel information of the third vehicle.
determine whether the second vehicle has departed from a travelling path based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector; and upon determining that the second vehicle has departed from the travelling path, control acceleration and deceleration based on the travel information of the third vehicle.
The ADAS of claim 1 , further comprising a velocity detector configured to detect a travelling velocity of the first vehicle and output travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity, wherein the communicator is configured to receive current position information of the first vehicle, and the controller is configured to acquire a first target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, and the distance information with respect to the second vehicle, acquire a second target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, the travelling information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle, and control the deceleration based on the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
wherein the communicator is configured to receive current position information of the first vehicle, and
the controller is configured to acquire a first target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, and the distance information with respect to the second vehicle, acquire a second target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, the travelling information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle, and control the deceleration based on the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
acquire a first target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, and the distance information with respect to the second vehicle,
acquire a second target deceleration based on the current position information of the first vehicle, the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle, the travelling information of the third vehicle, and the position information of the third vehicle, and
control the deceleration based on the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
The ADAS of claim 3 , wherein the controller is configured to, if the third vehicle exists in the surrounding of the second vehicle, control the deceleration at a smaller target deceleration between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
The ADAS of claim 1 , further comprising a velocity detector configured to detect the travelling velocity of the first vehicle and output travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity, wherein the communicator is configured to receive current position information of the first vehicle, and the controller is configured to acquire position information of an obstacle that is stopped in a travelling path based on road environment information received through the communicator, and control deceleration based on the acquired position information of the obstacle, the current position information of the first vehicle, and the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle.
the controller is configured to acquire position information of an obstacle that is stopped in a travelling path based on road environment information received through the communicator, and control deceleration based on the acquired position information of the obstacle, the current position information of the first vehicle, and the travelling velocity information of the first vehicle.
An advanced driver assist system (ADAS) for performing cruise control in a first vehicle, the ADAS comprising: an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle in a surrounding and output obstacle information about the detected obstacle; a velocity detector configured to detect a travelling velocity of the first vehicle and output actual travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity; a yaw rate detector configured to detect a yaw rate of the first vehicle and output yaw rate information about the detected yaw rate; and a controller configured to: determine whether the first vehicle is turning based on the detected yaw rate information during a cruise control mode, upon determining that the first vehicle is turning, determine whether an obstacle exists in a surrounding based on the obstacle information, upon determining that there is no obstacle in the surrounding, acquire a yaw rate value and a yaw acceleration value based on the yaw rate information, and control acceleration limit based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information.
an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle in a surrounding and output obstacle information about the detected obstacle;
a velocity detector configured to detect a travelling velocity of the first vehicle and output actual travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity;
a yaw rate detector configured to detect a yaw rate of the first vehicle and output yaw rate information about the detected yaw rate; and
a controller configured to: determine whether the first vehicle is turning based on the detected yaw rate information during a cruise control mode, upon determining that the first vehicle is turning, determine whether an obstacle exists in a surrounding based on the obstacle information, upon determining that there is no obstacle in the surrounding, acquire a yaw rate value and a yaw acceleration value based on the yaw rate information, and control acceleration limit based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information.
determine whether the first vehicle is turning based on the detected yaw rate information during a cruise control mode,
upon determining that the first vehicle is turning, determine whether an obstacle exists in a surrounding based on the obstacle information,
upon determining that there is no obstacle in the surrounding, acquire a yaw rate value and a yaw acceleration value based on the yaw rate information, and
control acceleration limit based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the controller is configured to determine whether an acceleration limit condition is satisfied based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the travelling velocity information, upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is satisfied, control acceleration based on a target acceleration, and upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is not satisfied, control acceleration based on a preset acceleration.
determine whether an acceleration limit condition is satisfied based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the travelling velocity information,
upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is satisfied, control acceleration based on a target acceleration, and
upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is not satisfied, control acceleration based on a preset acceleration.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the acceleration limit condition includes a condition in which the acquired yaw rate value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw acceleration value, and the travelling velocity of the first vehicle is greater than a first reference travelling velocity and less than a second reference travelling velocity.
a condition in which the acquired yaw rate value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw acceleration value, and the travelling velocity of the first vehicle is greater than a first reference travelling velocity and less than a second reference travelling velocity.
The ADAS of claim 6 , further comprising a steering angle detector configured to detect a steering angle of the first vehicle and output steering angle information about the detected steering angle, wherein the controller determines whether the first vehicle is turning based on the detected steering angle information.
wherein the controller determines whether the first vehicle is turning based on the detected steering angle information.
The ADAS of claim 6 , further comprising a lever signal receiver configured to receive a lever signal of a heading direction indicating lever, wherein the controller is configured to upon determining that an actual travelling velocity of the first vehicle is less than or equal to a target travelling velocity, a second vehicle does not exist in the surrounding of the first vehicle, and a turning drive command is received through the lever signal receiver, determine an acceleration limit condition.
wherein the controller is configured to
upon determining that an actual travelling velocity of the first vehicle is less than or equal to a target travelling velocity, a second vehicle does not exist in the surrounding of the first vehicle, and a turning drive command is received through the lever signal receiver, determine an acceleration limit condition.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the controller is configured to upon determining that an actual travelling velocity of the first vehicle is less than or equal to a target travelling velocity, another vehicle does not exist in the surrounding of the first vehicle, and a heading direction indicating lamp is turned on, determine an acceleration limit condition.
upon determining that an actual travelling velocity of the first vehicle is less than or equal to a target travelling velocity, another vehicle does not exist in the surrounding of the first vehicle, and a heading direction indicating lamp is turned on, determine an acceleration limit condition.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the controller is configured to, upon determining two heading direction indicating lamps are turned on, determine an emergency lamp is turned on.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the controller is configured to, when controlling the acceleration limit, control at least one of a display, a cluster, and a sound outputter to output deceleration request information.
The ADAS of claim 6 , wherein the controller is configured to control deactivation of a cruise control mode in response to receiving pressure information corresponding to a pressure applied to a brake pedal.
A vehicle comprising: a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicle and receiving current position information; an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle in a surrounding and output obstacle information about the detected obstacle; and a velocity detector configured to detect a travelling velocity and output actual travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity, and a controller configured to: acquire distance information about a distance to another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the vehicle within a travelling path among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode; acquire travel information and position information of another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the another vehicle based on information received through the communicator; and control acceleration and deceleration based on the current position information of the vehicle, the distance information with respect to the another vehicle, and the travel information and the position information of the another vehicle that travels in the surrounding of the another vehicle.
a communicator configured to communicate with a plurality of other vehicle and receiving current position information;
a velocity detector configured to detect a travelling velocity and output actual travelling velocity information about the detected travelling velocity, and
a controller configured to: acquire distance information about a distance to another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the vehicle within a travelling path among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode; acquire travel information and position information of another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the another vehicle based on information received through the communicator; and control acceleration and deceleration based on the current position information of the vehicle, the distance information with respect to the another vehicle, and the travel information and the position information of the another vehicle that travels in the surrounding of the another vehicle.
acquire distance information about a distance to another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the vehicle within a travelling path among the obstacles based on the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector during a cruise control mode;
acquire travel information and position information of another vehicle travelling in a surrounding of the another vehicle based on information received through the communicator; and
control acceleration and deceleration based on the current position information of the vehicle, the distance information with respect to the another vehicle, and the travel information and the position information of the another vehicle that travels in the surrounding of the another vehicle.
The vehicle of claim 15 , wherein the controller is configured to acquire a first target deceleration based on the current position information, the travelling velocity information of the another vehicle, and the distance information with respect to the another vehicle, acquire a second target deceleration based on the current position information, the actual travelling velocity information, and the travelling information and the position information of the another vehicle that travels in the surrounding of the another vehicle, and control the deceleration at a smaller target deceleration between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
acquire a first target deceleration based on the current position information, the travelling velocity information of the another vehicle, and the distance information with respect to the another vehicle,
acquire a second target deceleration based on the current position information, the actual travelling velocity information, and the travelling information and the position information of the another vehicle that travels in the surrounding of the another vehicle, and
control the deceleration at a smaller target deceleration between the first target deceleration and the second target deceleration.
The vehicle of claim 15 , further comprising a yaw rate detector configured to detect a yaw rate and output yaw rate information about the detected yaw rate, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether the vehicle is turning based on the detected yaw rate information, and upon determining that the vehicle is turning, acquire a yaw rate value and a yaw acceleration value based on the yaw rate information, and control acceleration limit based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information.
determine whether the vehicle is turning based on the detected yaw rate information, and
upon determining that the vehicle is turning, acquire a yaw rate value and a yaw acceleration value based on the yaw rate information, and
The vehicle of claim 17 , wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether an acceleration limit condition is satisfied based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information; upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is satisfied, control acceleration based on a target acceleration; and upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is not satisfied, control acceleration based on a preset acceleration.
determine whether an acceleration limit condition is satisfied based on the acquired yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value, and the actual travelling velocity information;
upon determining that the acceleration limit condition is satisfied, control acceleration based on a target acceleration; and
The vehicle of claim 18 , wherein the acceleration limit condition includes a condition in which the acquired yaw rate value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw rate value, the yaw acceleration value is greater than or equal to a reference yaw acceleration value, and the travelling velocity of the vehicle is greater than a first reference travelling velocity and less than a second reference travelling velocity.
a con
[Truncated to input limit]