US 10793148

I'll verify against live sources for litigation/docket activity and USPTO records before summarizing.

Let me run more targeted searches for litigation and PTAB/CAFC activity.

One more check for any enforcement or post-grant challenge tied to this specific number.

US Patent 10,793,148 — Verified Summary

Verification note: My searches for the exact string "10793148" returned mostly unrelated hits (UK company numbers, Estonian registry codes, etc.) — a reminder that this is a short numeric string that collides with many non-patent identifiers. The authoritative match is the Google Patents full text supplied in the prompt plus the confirmed uspto.report record at https://uspto.report/patent/grant/10,793,148. No results for any similar patent number (e.g., 10,793,418 or 10,793,481) are included below.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as issued)

An apparatus includes a sensor to sense an environment outside the vehicle, a positioning device to measure a current position of the vehicle, and a controller to calculate a first weighted time to collision with another vehicle using an accident severity index obtained based on the environment outside the vehicle and the current position of the vehicle, and to control collision avoidance based on the calculated first weighted time to collision.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — apparatus (system) claim. Three cooperating parts:

• a sensor that senses conditions outside the vehicle;
• a positioning device (e.g., GPS) that measures the vehicle's current position; and
• a controller that computes a "first weighted time to collision" (wTTC_1) toward another vehicle.

The weight comes from an accident severity index that is a function of (a) the number of fatalities occurring in that outside environment, (b) the vehicle's current position, and (c) a collision risk — where the collision risk itself is derived from fatality counts broken down by collision position and collision direction of accident vehicles at that location. The controller then drives collision avoidance based on that weighted value. In essence: rather than relying only on what the sensors detect right now, the claim folds in historical crash statistics for the place you currently are.

The specification supplies the weighting math: wTTC_1 = (100 − G2 × accident severity index) × TTC / G1, where G1 and G2 are tuning gains selected so that wTTC_1 < TTC (i.e., the more dangerous the location, the earlier the system reacts).

Claim 10 — method claim. The method mirror of claim 1: sensing the outside environment; measuring current position; obtaining the accident severity index from that environment and position; calculating a first weighted time to collision based on the index; and controlling collision avoidance based on it. Claim 10 carries the same two defining limitations as claim 1 (fatalities + collision risk defining the index; collision position and direction defining the risk).

Dependent-claim ladder (context for the independent claims)

Independent claims 1 and 10 are narrowed by a graduated intervention scale:

• Claims 3 / 11: warning light or warning sound when wTTC_1 > a first time.
• Claims 4 / 12: reduce engine power or produce a braking jerk when wTTC_1 is between a second time and the first time.
• Claims 5 / 13: apply braking torque (maximum deceleration) when wTTC_1 ≤ second time and the driver is not steering.
• Claims 6 / 14: if the driver is steering, compute a second wTTC (decelerating in the steered direction) and a third wTTC (decelerating without steering) and compare them.
• Claims 7 / 15: assist the driver's steering when wTTC_2 > wTTC_3.
• Claims 8 / 16: suppress the driver's steering input when wTTC_2 ≤ wTTC_3.
• Claim 9: set smart-cruise-control speed using the accident severity index — the FIG. 7 right-merge-road scenario where the sensor cannot see the merging vehicle.

Prior art cited on the face

US 2009/0326820 A1 (Toyota); US 2013/0226408 A1 (Honda); US 2014/0195120 A1 (Continental); US 2016/0150070 A1 (Secure4Drive); KR 101665451 B1 (Hyundai Autron); US 2017/0236210 A1 and US 2017/0241791 A1 (Allstate).

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status — important caveat

I found no litigation, PTAB proceeding, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 10,793,148, including none on 2026 CAFC dockets. My searches surfaced Hyundai/Kia patent disputes, but every one involved different patents — e.g., Germ Dome Industries v. Hyundai Motor America (C.D. Cal. 8:25-cv-02593, asserting US 12,296,061, with a Hyundai PGR petition at the PTAB), Malikie Innovations v. Hyundai (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00387), LKQ v. Hyundai (D. Del. 1:26-cv-00137, design patents), and Nortrup v. Hyundai (E.D. Tex. 4:26-cv-00542). None lists the '148 patent.

Uncertainty disclosure: my tools are web-search based rather than direct PACER/PTAB/CAFC API queries, so this is a "no evidence found" conclusion, not a certification that no proceeding exists. A paid docket service (Lexis, Docket Navigator, RPX) or the USPTO Patent Public Search / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End system should be queried for a definitive negative. Also note the statutory disclaimer possibility: to the extent any of claims 1–16 have been disclaimed, that would not appear in the Google Patents text I relied on.

One further item worth flagging for accuracy: EP 3950428 A1 (Hyundai Motor Company, 2020-08-04, "Apparatus and method for controlling driving of vehicle") appears in the Google Patents page as a family citing this family — i.e., a later Hyundai filing referencing this work — not as a member of the '148 family itself. The '148 family proper is limited to the KR and CN members listed above.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10793148 across patent litigation databases.

Initial searches show no litigation. Let me check the specialized litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 10,793,148

Conclusion: No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 10,793,148.

Based on the searches I ran, I found no record of any district court action, Federal Circuit appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding (IPR, PGR, CBM) in which U.S. Patent No. 10,793,148 has been asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue.

What the searches did return

Important caveats and limitations (stated explicitly)

1. I could not directly query PACER, the Unified Patents litigation portal, or Docket Alarm's back-end database with the search tools available to me. My conclusions rest on general web indexing of litigation databases, which is not exhaustive.
2. The patent is still relatively recent — issued October 6, 2020 — and the most likely assertion scenario (a Hyundai/Kia supplier or a competitor) may not yet appear in indexed sources.
3. Because I could not confirm a negative through a primary docket source, I am stating this as "no litigation found," not as an affirmative certification that none exists. A party needing a litigation-clearance opinion should run a direct PACER/Docket Alarm search on the patent number and on the assignees (Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Corp., University Industry Cooperation Foundation of Pusan National University).

Suggested next steps for verification

• PACER "Find a Case" search on the patent number and on the three assignees
• Unified Patents litigation portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist
• USPTO Patent Center "Litigation" and assignment records for the '148 patent
• USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) docket search for IPR/PGR/CBM referencing 10,793,148

If it would be useful, I can draft the precise search strings for those primary sources so you (or your paralegal) can confirm the negative directly.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before concluding.

Let me run a couple more targeted checks before concluding.

PTAB proceedings on file

Source of record: USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returned zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR, PGR, CBM) naming US 10793148 as the challenged patent. I cross-checked via web search for any IPR/PGR/CBM petition, FWD, or Federal Circuit appeal naming the '148 patent or its family — nothing surfaced. I found no proceeding numbers to report, and I will not invent any.

---

Proceedings overview

Total proceedings: 0. There are no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no institution decisions, no final written decisions, no settlements, and no Federal Circuit appeals on file for US 10793148. The breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The defensive posture is untested, not hardened — the patent has survived no IPRs because it has never faced one, which is materially different from a patent that beat back challenges. Any defendant facing assertion today starts from a clean slate with all § 102/§ 103 grounds available (subject to the estoppel and time-bar rules discussed below), and no claim of the '148 patent carries the benefit of PTAB affirmance.

Why that is the expected result here, not a red flag. US 10793148 is owned by the entity that would normally be the defendant in patent litigation: Hyundai Motor Co., Kia Corp., and the University Industry Cooperation Foundation of Pusan National University (assignment recorded 2018-12-19; see the structured record and Google Patents). Issued 2020-10-06 from US 16/179,151, filed 2018-11-02, priority KR 10-2018-0096908 (2018-08-20), with family members CN110843773B and KR102610729B1. OEM- and university-owned patents are typically held defensively or cross-licensed; they are asserted rarely and usually only in countersuit posture. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs — this one simply has not been asserted in a way that generated one.

---

Proceeding-by-proceeding

None to report. No AIA trial has been instituted, denied, or terminated against this patent.

Items adjacent to this patent that are not PTAB proceedings (flagged for accuracy)

• US20210089629A1 — Microsoft Technology Licensing, "Inertia scaling based on neighboring bodies," is the sole third-party citation listing in the "Cited By" table of the structured record. It cites to the '148 patent; it is not a challenge to it.
• EP3950428A1 — Hyundai Motor Company, "Apparatus and method for controlling driving of vehicle," listed under "Families Citing this family." This is a Hyundai family member / continuation-line publication, not an adversarial proceeding.
• The seven references in the "Citations (7)" list (Toyota US20090326820A1, Honda US20130226408A1, Continental US20140195120A1, Secure4Drive US20160150070A1, Hyundai Autron KR101665451B1, Allstate US20170236210A1 "Early Notification of Non-Autonomous Area," Allstate US20170241791A1 "Risk Maps") were cited by the examiner during prosecution, and the "Family Cites Families" list (13 entries, including DE112005003266T5, JP4412356B2, EP2085279B1, EP2363846B1, US9718468B2, KR102441060B1, KR102441062B1) reflects family-level citation practice. These are prior-art citations, not PTAB petition grounds. Do not cite any of them as having been "invalidating art in an IPR" — they were not.
• Hyundai's other PTAB work (e.g., IPR2014-00657 against American Vehicular Sciences, the Paice family IPRs IPR2015-00794 / IPR2016-00250, and the recent PGR against Germ Dome's US 12,296,061) involves different patents and shows Hyundai as a petitioner, not as patent owner. None of it touches the '148 patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. The patent has 16 claims: independent claim 1 (apparatus) with dependents 2–9, and independent claim 10 (method) with dependents 11–16. Not one of these claims has been construed by a PTAB panel, cancelled, confirmed, or disclaimed in any AIA proceeding, and no certificate of cancellation or certificate of correction has issued. There is no narrowing amendment or adverse judgment on file. The claim set as granted is the claim set you face. Claim 1's core limits, for attack planning: (a) a sensor sensing environment outside the vehicle, (b) a positioning device measuring current position, (c) a controller calculating a first weighted time to collision using an accident severity index derived from both the outside environment and the current position, and further defined by (d) the accident severity index being calculated from the number of fatalities occurring in that environment/position and a collision risk, with (e) the collision risk calculated from the number of fatalities according to collision position and collision direction. Claims 7–8 and 15–16 (steering assistance vs. steering suppression based on comparing wTTC_2 against wTTC_3) are where the specification's real novelty sits, and they are the narrowest claims in the set — an invalidity case that knocks out claim 1 without reaching claims 7–8 leaves the commercially interesting steering-intervention coverage intact.

Estoppel landscape: empty. There is no § 315(e) estoppel because there has been no IPR and no petitioner. No third party is barred from raising anything, and no privy relationship exists to impute prior grounds to a current defendant. Every prior-art combination remains on the table for district court, IPR, or both — subject only to (i) the § 315(b) one-year bar if you have already been served with a complaint asserting the '148 patent (note the complaint date; the bar runs from service, not from filing), and (ii) the § 102/§ 103 art you can actually prove. Because no statutory disclaimer or cancellation has occurred, there is also no SAS -style partial-survival problem to navigate and no IPR-driven claim-construction record to work around.

Pattern signals: none. The same petitioner has filed nothing (there are no petitioners). The patent owner has appealed nothing to the Federal Circuit — there is no PTAB record to appeal. No defensive aggregator is in the chain: I found no Unified Patents, no RPX, no OIN filing against this patent, and no NPE acquisition in the assignment history — the assignees have been Hyundai, Kia, and the Pusan National University foundation from the start. The patent sits in a defensive portfolio, and the likelier assertion posture is Hyundai/Kia asserting it offensively against an ADAS or aftermarket competitor, not a troll asserting it against Hyundai.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and have been served with a complaint asserting US 10793148, act on the § 315(b) clock immediately. You have one year from service to file an IPR. Because there is no prior PTAB record, you get a first-mover advantage — no admission-by-inference problem from an earlier losing petition, and no risk that the patent owner has already banked a favorable claim construction. Pull the prosecution history of US 16/179,151 (filed 2018-11-02) and the KR priority application 10-2018-0096908, and check the CN110843773B and KR102610729B1 prosecution files too: foreign-office rejections in a family like this are a cheap, high-yield source of art the examiner never saw.
2. Do not expect a quick IPR institution in the current regime. Institution decisions are now made personally by the Director following the 2025 changes; discretionary denials hit a record high of 607 in 2025, and the "settled expectations" factor disfavors petitions against patents that have been in force more than roughly six years. The '148 patent issued 2020-10-06, so as of 2026-09-27 it is at the edge of that window. That means your petition faces both a merits threshold (§ 314(a)) and a discretionary one — plan for a robust § 325(d) rebuttal if the art is near the examiner's citations, and consider a parallel ex parte reexamination request, which does not carry the same discretionary-denial machinery and has become the strategically favored alternative. See USPTO PTAB Decisions for institution-decision practice and Unified Patents' 2025 in Review for the denial-rate data.
3. If you are not yet in litigation, treat the absence of PTAB activity as a planning input rather than reassurance. The absence tells you the patent has not been battle-tested; it does not tell you the claims are strong. Independent claims 1 and 10 are apparatus/method claims tied to a server-supplied "accident severity index" — a data-sourcing element that is frequently vulnerable on § 103 grounds (a POSITA combining a telematics/GPS vehicle position feed with an accident-statistics database and a conventional FCW/AEB timing threshold), and on § 112 written-description grounds if the "weighted time to collision" tuning-gain limitations (G1/G2 in Equation 1) are attacked as lacking enablement outside the specific numeric examples disclosed.
4. Watch the family, not the PTAB. The most likely future PTAB activity on this patent family is a continuation granted from the '148 line being challenged, not the '148 itself. Monitor new grants claiming priority to KR 10-2018-0096908 and the CN/KR national-phase counterparts for competitor-initiated challenges.

Bottom line: zero PTAB proceedings exist on US 10793148 as of 2026-09-27. Do not represent to a court or an adversary that any claim has been invalidated — it has not. Correspondingly, do not assume the patent is strong because it is unchallenged — it is unchallenged because it has been held defensively by Hyundai/Kia/Pusan, and that state of affairs can change the moment the patent is asserted.

I'll attempt to pull the recorded assignment data from USPTO Assignment Search and cross-reference the ownership chain.

Let me try to source reel/frame and correspondent data, plus check for any post-issuance transfers (e.g., the Kia name change).

Let me make a final attempt at the assignment reel/frame record and any later transfers.

Assignment Reconstruction — US Patent 10,793,148

Critical data-access caveat, stated up front: the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) is a JS-driven database that my web-search tooling cannot query directly, and no indexed mirror of the reel/frame record for this patent surfaced in any of my searches. Accordingly, the reel/frame numbers and the correspondent-of-record name are not available to me, and I will not invent them. Everything below that is asserted as fact comes from the Google Patents legal-events/assignee record supplied in the prompt (authoritative per operating rules) plus one independently verified corporate-name-change event.

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• This is a two-inventor, industry + academia joint filing. That structure (one OEM engineer + one university faculty member, with the university's industry-academia cooperation foundation as a co-owner) is a research-collaboration signature, not a fire-sale precursor.
• I found no evidence that either inventor departed an assignee within 12 months of the 2018-11-02 filing. The prompt-supplied record shows only a grant of rights to the three assignees, with no later conveyance away.
• Inventor employer attribution above is inference from the assignment structure, not a verified employment record. Treat as moderate confidence.

---

Original assignee

The issued patent’s original assignee block names a three-party joint ownership:

1. Hyundai Motor Company — Korean OEM; primary line of business is automobile manufacturing. Status: operating (publicly listed, KRX: 005380). Ships vehicles with forward collision-avoidance assist / autonomous emergency braking and smart cruise control — the general system class recited in claims 1–9.
2. Kia Motors Corporation — Korean OEM; sister company of Hyundai. Status: operating under a changed legal name — see timeline. Now reflected as Kia Corp in the "current assignee" field.
3. University Industry Cooperation Foundation of Pusan National University — the tech-transfer / industry-academia arm of a national Korean university. Status: operating. This is a non-practicing co-owner by design (a university foundation does not manufacture), but it is the normal statutory vehicle for Korean university IP and is not an NPE in the troll sense — it holds and licenses research IP from its own faculty.

Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Hyundai and Kia ship AEB/FCA and smart-cruise-control systems that sit squarely in the claim’s subject matter, and the FIG. 7 right-merge-road scenario is a production-adjacent use case. However, I found no evidence that any shipped Hyundai/Kia vehicle implements the specific claimed element — an accident severity index derived from server-side historical fatality statistics weighted by collision position and collision direction. So: operating companies in the right technical space, but product-practice of the claims is unverified.

---

Assignment timeline

The record I can actually attest to is one pre-issuance assignment plus the application-filing ownership listing. Because I cannot read the Assignment Center’s reel/frame or correspondent fields, those are marked [not retrievable] rather than guessed.

• 2018-08-20 (priority) — no reel (foreign priority filing) — KR 10-2018-0096908 filed by the three applicants; priority basis for the US case and the KR/CN family members.

  • Context: original filing — establishes the joint Korea/US ownership starting point.

• 2018-11-02 (executed/filed) — no reel (application data sheet, not an assignment) — US App. 16/179,151 filed.

  • Applicant/assignee of record: Hyundai Motor Co.; Kia Motors Corp.; University Industry Cooperation Foundation of Pusan National University.
  • Context: original filing; ownership captured at filing rather than by later recordation.

• Executed date [not retrievable] / recorded 2018-12-19 — Reel [not retrievable] / Frame [not retrievable]

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors’ interest (nunc pro tunc grant of rights; Google Patents lists this under "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignors: AHN, CHANG SUN; KIM, NAM HAN (the two named inventors)
  • Assignees: HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY; PUSAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY-UNIVERSITY COOPERATION FOUNDATION; KIA MOTORS CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: [not retrievable] — I could not obtain the recording attorney/firm of record. Flag: because this is a single assignment from two individual inventors to three joint corporate/academic assignees, it is a routine employer/university rights-capture record; a repeat-player NPE correspondent is not expected here, but I cannot positively confirm the absence.
  • Context: Original rights capture — inventors assign to their employers/university at filing. Not a fire-sale, not a reorg, not a transfer to an asserter.

• 2021-01/2021-03 (approximate, corporate action) — reel/frame [not retrievable] for any corresponding USPTO change-of-name record

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (if recorded) — Kia Motors Corporation → Kia Corporation
  • Basis: Kia’s own press materials confirm "Kia Motors Corporation's recent change of name to Kia Corporation" (Kia America launch release, 2021-05-18; https://www.kianewscenter.com/news/europe-news/kia-america-debuts-in-us.-new-name-replaces-kia-motors-america-as-part-of-kia-corporation-global-bra/s/0301e7de-afd8-47ad-8ec4-5029117c9011). Google Patents now lists the current assignee as "Kia Corp" while the original assignee block still reads "Kia Motors Corp," which is consistent with a recorded change of name — but I could not verify a reel/frame for that recordation and therefore do not assert it as a recorded assignment.
  • Context: Change of name only — no change in beneficial ownership.

Post-issuance transfers to third parties: none found. No assignment, security agreement, license, or release recorded after issuance appears in any source I could reach. The last substantive ownership event is the 2018-12-19 rights capture by the three co-owners, with the only later movement being the Kia name change.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by patent number 10793148 or by application 16/179,151. (This is the entry point that will expose the reel/frame and correspondent fields I could not retrieve.)

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10793148
    2018 : KR priority filed by Hyundai Kia and PNU
         : US application 16 179 151 filed
         : Inventors Ahn and Kim assign to three co-owners
    2020 : Patent issued on 2020-10-06
    2021 : Kia Motors Corporation renamed Kia Corporation

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data

The record contains only the original assignment — the 2018-12-19 grant of rights from inventors Ahn, Chang Sun and Kim, Nam Han to the three joint co-owners (Hyundai Motor Company; Pusan National University Industry-University Cooperation Foundation; Kia Motors Corporation) — with no subsequent conveyance to any third party, and the reel/frame and correspondent fields are not retrievable through my tooling. Every affirmative NPE signal is absent: no shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading transfers, no bankruptcy sale, no privateering, and no defensive-aggregator acquisition. Substantively this reads as a clean, operating-company-plus-university jointly owned portfolio asset that has never been asserted; the "Insufficient data" label reflects the incomplete reel/frame and correspondent record, not any adverse indicator.

To move this to a definitive verdict, the following must be pulled from primary sources I cannot query: (a) the reel/frame for the 2018-12-19 recordation and its correspondent of record at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/; (b) any 2021 Kia Motors Corp → Kia Corp change-of-name recordation; (c) a confirmation negative on chapter 11 / fire-sale activity for the three assignees; and (d) a PACER / PTAB / Unified Patents portal check for any proceeding involving 10,793,148 — which the earlier litigation section also found to be empty.

I'll research each cited reference to provide accurate citations and assess anticipation. Let me start with targeted searches.

Now the remaining cited references plus key family citations.

Prior-art analysis — US 10,793,148 B2

Scope note / method. The task asks me to treat the USPTO database as the source of "each patent citation" for 10,793,148. Because patent-number web searches surface the examiner-cited references on the patent's own front page, I used the two citation lists that appear on the granted patent's face:

• "Citations (7)" — the references cited by/against this application (the IDS/Form-892 set).
• "Family Cites Families (13)" — references cited in the sibling KR/CN/EP family members.

Tool-limit disclosure (important): I exhausted my search budget before I could pull full text for two of the seven front-page references (the two Allstate applications) and for several family-cited documents. Where I mark [not independently verified], treat the description as provisional and confirm against the source document before relying on it. I did not auto-correct any identifier; all numbers below are transcribed literally from the patent.

---

A. The seven front-page (Form-892) citations

Per-reference §102 assessment

Legal frame that governs all seven: every one of claims 1–16 is ultimately limited by the first weighted time to collision (wTTC_1), which under claim 1 must be computed from an accident severity index that itself is a function of number of fatalities + a collision risk, the collision risk being derived from fatality counts broken down by collision position and collision direction. A dependent claim carries every limitation of the claim it depends from. So a reference can "anticipate" a dependent claim under §102 only if it also discloses the full claim-1 subject matter. None of the seven does. That is the decisive point below.

1. US 2009/0326820 A1 (Toyota) — closest to claims 5–8, but no §102 anticipation.

• Discloses: automatic braking on collision likelihood; steering-operation detection; extending braking duration when the driver steers to avoid.
• Missing for §102: no weighted TTC, no accident severity index, no fatality/collision-position/direction data.
• Best case §102 theory: none reaches a full claim. It touches the steering-vs-braking theme of claims 6–8, but the direction of control differs (Toyota extends braking after a steering avoidance; claims 7/8 assist or suppress steering based on wTTC_2 vs wTTC_3). Relevant as §103 art, not §102.

2. US 2013/0226408 A1 (Honda) — no §102 anticipation.

• Discloses: attention/drowsiness detection; coordinated modification of multiple vehicle systems.
• Missing for §102: the entire accident-severity-index / wTTC architecture; no historical-fatality or collision-position data.
• Best case §102 theory: none for claims 1–16. Background art for the "adapt the intervention" concept; §103 only.

3. US 2014/0195120 A1 (Continental) — most structurally analogous to the claim ladder, still no §102.

• Discloses: the graduated decision-point scheme (warning → brake → steer) that parallels the claim 3/4/5 "first time / second time" tiers, plus environment-dependent collision-avoidance charts (last point to brake / last point to steer).
• Missing for §102: its decision points are functions of sensor-detected kinematics and driver attentiveness, not an accident severity index built from fatalities and collision-position/direction statistics; no "weighted" TTC.
• Best case §102 theory: none reaches even claim 3 (which still requires "the first weighted time to collision > first time"). Strong §103 art for the warning/brake/steer tiering of claims 3–6.

4. US 2016/0150070 A1 (Secure4Drive) — closest to claim 1's server concept, still no §102.

• Discloses: external server/telematics feeding driving-condition data into the vehicle; a quantified "safety level"; use of location, heading and TTC to pick relevant nearby vehicles.
• Missing for §102: the safety level is derived from live sensor/telemetric data, not from historical traffic-fatality counts or a collision risk indexed by collision position/direction; no wTTC.
• Best case §102 theory: none for claim 1. It is the best §103 springboard for the "obtain a risk figure from a server and fold it into TTC" idea.

5. KR 101665451 B1 (Hyundai Autron) — closest to the "weighted/corrected index vs threshold" idea, still no §102.

• Discloses: risk-index computation; correction of the index to reflect vehicle variables or the driver's collision-avoidance attempt; threshold comparison to trigger emergency braking; use of TTC among the index inputs.
• Missing for §102: the index is built from sensor-measured obstacle geometry (relative distance/velocity, TTC, friction, Hill coefficient), not from number-of-fatalities plus a collision-position/direction risk; no wTTC_1/wTTC_2/wTTC_3.
• Best case §102 theory: none for claims 1–16; conceptually closest to the claims 5/6 "driver-attempt" branch. §103 art.

6. US 2017/0236210 A1 (Allstate) — no §102 anticipation. [not independently verified] Discloses location-aware notification, not collision-avoidance control keyed to a weighted TTC; supplies no claim-1 element. Relevant only as context for location-based risk §103.

7. US 2017/0241791 A1 (Allstate, "Risk Maps") — no §102 anticipation, but the most conceptually relevant to the core novelty. [not independently verified] Location-based risk formed from aggregated historical/telematics data is the closest prior-art analogue to the "accident severity index obtained from position." Even so, it is not shown to disclose (a) the fatality + collision-position/direction formulation, or (b) reflecting that risk into a time-to-collision to produce wTTC_1. So: §103 art, and the reference a validity challenger would most likely pair with a TTC-based system (e.g., #3 or #5).

---

B. Family-cited references (cited in the KR/CN/EP siblings) — supplementary

These appear under "Family Cites Families" and are prior art of record for the family, though not on the U.S. front page.

Date caveat for the two KR 10-2441xxx references: their listed priority dates (Dec. 2016) precede the '148 priority (2018-08-20), but their grant publication dates (2022) fall after. As Korean-only publications they generally would not qualify as §102(a)(1) art (not publicly available before the critical date in the form shown) or as §102(a)(2) art (which reaches only U.S. patents/applications and certain PCT designations). Before treating them as §102 art, confirm whether an earlier-laid-open KR/PCT publication of the same disclosure exists. [not independently verified]

---

C. Overall conclusion

1. No cited reference anticipates (i.e., §102) any of claims 1–16. Each of claims 1 and 10 requires a first weighted time to collision derived from an accident severity index that is a function of number of fatalities + a collision risk, where the collision risk is derived from fatality counts by collision position and collision direction. No reference in either list discloses that combination. Because every dependent claim incorporates the claim-1/claim-10 limitations, the same conclusion follows a fortiori for claims 2–9 and 11–16.

2. The references are best characterized as §103 (obviousness) art, and they cluster into three groups that a challenger would likely combine:

   • Graduated intervention triggers (warning → brake → steer): US 2014/0195120 (Continental) and KR 101665451 (Hyundai Autron) — against claims 3–6.
   • Driver-steering-response handling: US 2009/0326820 (Toyota) — against claims 6–8.
   • Position/server-based risk data: US 2016/0150070 (Secure4Drive) and US 2017/0241791 (Allstate "Risk Maps") — against the "obtain from a server / based on current position" aspects of claims 1, 9, 10.
     A prima-facie §103 case would require pairing a TTC-based AEB reference (group 1/2) with a location-risk reference (group 3) and then articulating why feeding historical crash severity into the TTC threshold would have been obvious.

3. The claim-9 smart-cruise-control feature (setting SCC speed from the accident severity index — the FIG. 7 right-merge scenario) is the most likely point of §103 attack, because adaptive-cruise references (e.g., US 2014/0195120, which expressly recites adaptive cruise control) already teach changing cruise behavior based on external/risk conditions.

4. Accuracy / verification flags:

   • Descriptions marked [not independently verified] (US 2017/0236210, US 2017/0241791, US 9718468) rest on the citation metadata only; I did not retrieve their full text.
   • I did not retrieve the prosecution-history rejections, so I cannot say which of these references the examiner actually applied under §102 vs. §103 — only that they are of record. Confirm via the US 16/179,151 file wrapper (Patent Center) if the rejection basis matters.
   • Two of my search steps returned "maximum number of steps" instead of results; the affected gaps are exactly the [not independently verified] items above.

Primary sources to confirm the negative/positive points: Google Patents record for US 10,793,148 B2 (the supplied full text and its citation lists); USPTO Patent Center file wrapper for application 16/179,151; and the individual publication pages for each reference number listed in section A/B above.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual cited references rather than relying on memory. Let me pull the key prior-art documents.

Good grounding. Let me pull the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,793,148 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Scope note on sources. Per your instruction I used the Prior Art section of the US 10,793,148 record on Google Patents — i.e., the seven references under "Citations (7)" and the thirteen under "Family Cites Families (13)." I verified the substance of four of the seven cited references against live full text (Allstate ×2, Continental, Honda, Toyota) and I flag below exactly which references I could not independently verify in this session and therefore do not attribute any specific disclosure to.

Date-discrepancy flag. The task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026," while the operating environment reports 2026-09-27. Nothing in this analysis turns on the difference (all prior art pre-dates the 2018-08-20 priority date with years to spare), but I am flagging it rather than silently picking one. The earlier-generated sections in this file use 2026-09-27.

Cross-reference to prior work. The PTAB/litigation sections establish the key posture for this analysis: zero AIA proceedings, no claim construction, no disclaimer. Accordingly, the claim set I analyze is the granted set, construed for the first time here, and no estoppel or adverse-judgment narrowing applies. The bibliographic sections are correct and I do not repeat them.

---

1. Framework and level of ordinary skill

Graham v. John Deere factors: scope and content of the prior art; differences between the prior art and the claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations. Motivation/rationale must satisfy KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — including predictable variation, known technique to improve similar devices, and design incentives/market forces.

POSITA (proposed): a bachelor's degree in electrical, mechanical, automotive, or computer engineering (or equivalent), plus 2–3 years of experience in ADAS / collision-avoidance systems, or a master's degree with less experience. This is deliberately modest: the '148 is an integration patent — it combines a conventional TTC-based AEB with a conventional map/crash-statistics data feed. The skill level is set by the integrator, not the crash-statistician.

Critical claim-construction point that makes the § 103 case easier. Claims 1 and 10 recite a "first weighted time to collision" based on an accident severity index. They do not recite the specification's weighting equation, wTTC_1 = (100 − G2 × ASI) × TTC / G1 (spec, Eq. 1), nor G1/G2. Under the broadest reasonable reading (and under Phillips), "weighted time to collision" reads on any TTC that is adjusted/scaled by a location-risk factor, and "obtained based on" is a capability limitation (the index may be computed remotely and received — spec expressly contemplates the server 200 computing it). A defendant therefore does not have to find prior art teaching Eq. 1; it need only find art that (a) modifies an AEB trigger timing using (b) a location-specific historical-crash severity value. That is the heart of this analysis, and it is why the crown-jewel limitations are (d) and (e), not the equation.

---

2. Claim 1 element-by-element mapping

---

3. The operative combinations and the motivation to combine

Combination A — Primary: Allstate '236210 + Toyota '820 (+ Allstate '241791)

References: US 2017/0236210 A1 (Allstate; granted US 11,250,514 B2) + US 2009/0326820 A1 (Toyota; US 8,200,419 B2) + US 2017/0241791 A1 (Allstate, "Risk Maps").

What renders claim 1 obvious:

• Toyota '820 supplies the TTC-based collision avoidance controller and threshold-driven automatic braking — the "time to collision" backbone of every AEB.
• Allstate '236210/'241791 supply (i) the GPS-derived current position, (ii) a position-specific historical-crash severity value ("risk score"), and (iii) an express directive to adjust autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicle driving based on that value to avoid accidents historically occurring on that route.
• Substituting Allstate's location-risk score as the weighting factor on Toyota's TTC produces the claimed "first weighted time to collision" with no change in the principle of operation: both are simply "trigger the avoidance action earlier when the situation is more dangerous."

Motivation (KSR-compliant):

1. Same field, same problem. Both references address preventing/minimizing collisions, and Allstate's is expressly directed to adjusting vehicle driving to avoid accidents that have historically occurred at the current location.
2. KSR "known technique to improve similar devices." Adjusting an AEB activation timing constant by an environmental severity input is the canonical example of a predictable variation. The only difference is which input (driver attentiveness in Continental; location risk in Allstate) is multiplied into the trigger threshold.
3. Applicant's own admission. The '148 background concedes that sensor-only AEB cannot handle a pedestrian hidden by a parked vehicle, and the stated object is to "perform strong control to avoid a collision in an external environment incapable of being sensed by the sensor." That is an express, on-the-record motivation to bolt a non-sensor (server/map) risk source onto a conventional AEB — an admission usable against the applicant under In re Nomiya / applicant-admission doctrine.
4. Market force. The '148 background itself invokes Euro NCAP AEBS requirements as the driver for better detection timing — a classic KSR "design incentive" rationale.
5. Reasonable expectation of success. Both inputs are numeric scalars; scaling one TTC threshold by another is arithmetic, not experimentation.

Combination B — For the claims 6–8 / 14–16 steering branch: Continental '95120 + Toyota '820

References: US 2014/0195120 A1 (Continental; US 9,472,102 B2) + US 2009/0326820 A1 (Toyota).

The '148's only genuinely non-routine subject matter is operative claims 7–8/15–16: compute wTTC_2 (deceleration with the driver's steer) and wTTC_3 (deceleration without steering), compare them, then assist the steer if wTTC_2 > wTTC_3 or suppress it if wTTC_2 ≤ wTTC_3.

• Continental '95120 discloses exactly this decision architecture in geometric form: three decision points — a warning point, a brake point (last point to brake, "LPB"), and a steering point (last point to steer, "LPS") — with a collision-avoidance chart whose brake line 220 and steering line 210 define, as functions of speed and distance, whether braking or steering can still avoid the collision (FPO; justia 9,472,102). LPB and LPS are the claimed wTTC_3 and wTTC_2 — the last moment at which the respective maneuver still avoids impact.
• Continental further discloses that the system can load different collision-avoidance charts by condition and adapt warning/brake/steer points, and can alter ACC gap based on driver state.
• Toyota '820 supplies the complementary teaching of modulating automatic braking based on whether the driver steers to avoid, and of continuing/increasing braking duration when the avoidance was by steering as opposed to not (uspto.report, ¶¶ [0056]–[0064]).

Motivation: a POSITA comparing LPB against LPS as Continental does would naturally select the maneuver with the later last point — that is the entire purpose of computing both lines. Recasting Continental's geometric "last point to steer" as a time (TTC) and comparing times is a mere change of units (KSR; In re Stencel-type design-choice). Toyota supplies the second reason: coordinating braking with the driver's steering input to stabilize vehicle behavior. Combined, they render claims 6–8 obvious, with claim 7 (assist when steering is better) and claim 8 (suppress when steering is worse) being the two symmetric branches of Continental's own chart comparison.

Combination C — Claim 9 smart-cruise-control: Continental '95120 + Allstate '241791

Continental expressly teaches instructing an adaptive cruise control system to increase the gap between vehicles when a driver-state input worsens, and lists adaptive cruise control among the systems whose response is adapted. Allstate '241791/'236210 teach adjusting vehicle operation based on a position-specific risk score. Substituting a location-risk input for Continental's attentiveness input in the same ACC-gap control loop is a predictable variation of a known technique on a known device, and directly reads on claim 9's "control a smart cruise control setting speed based on the accident severity index." The '148's FIG. 7 right-merge scenario — decelerating before an unsensed merging vehicle — is the result a POSITA would expect from feeding Continental's ACC controller a map-based risk value.

Combination D (secondary, for element (d)/(e)) — Allstate risk-map family + a crash-data classification reference

Because the "fatalities" and "collision position/direction" limitations are the crux (§5), the strongest secondary reference is one that speaks to crash-data taxonomy. From the record, the Family Cites Families group is the highest-yield place to look, because those are references the KR or CN examiner cited against the family — including:

• US 9,718,468 B2 (Verizon, "Collision prediction system," priority 2015-10-13) — plausibly TTC/collision-prediction focused.
• EP 3 159 235 B1 (Honda Research Institute Europe, filed 2015-10-22, "Method and system for assisting a driver of a vehicle in driving the vehicle").
• EP 2 085 279 B1 (Ford Global Technologies, "A system for collision course prediction") and EP 2 363 846 B1 (Volvo Car, "System and method for collision warning") — both collision-geometry references.
• KR 10-1519287 B1 (Hyundai, "Apparatus and method for preventing vehicle collision") and KR 10-1441060 / 10-2441062 (Hyundai collision-control).

I did not verify the disclosures of any of these in this session and therefore do not attribute specific teachings to them. They are identified as pull-targets, not as proof.

---

4. Dependent-claim obviousness summary

---

5. Where the § 103 case is genuinely weak (do not overclaim)

A defensible invalidity opinion must identify the limitations the art does not clearly reach. Two do:

(1) "Number of fatalities" as the severity metric. The verified Allstate disclosure computes risk scores from accident information — loss type, bodily-injury coverage, loss cost, accident counts per segment, impact type. I did not verify an express teaching of counting fatalities per road segment as the metric. A defendant must bridge this with either (a) a secondary reference or the applicant's own admitted server data source, or (b) POSITA general knowledge that fatality counts are the canonical public crash statistic (NHTSA FARS/GES publish exactly this, geocoded by segment/intersection, and the '148 obtains its index from nothing more exotic than that). Route (b) is arguable under KSR's "known field" rationale but is the attack's soft spot, especially because the claims tie the index to fatalities rather than to accidents generally.

(2) "Collision position AND collision direction" as two separate axes of the collision risk. Allstate's data model includes impact type and "direction the vehicle is traveling immediately before the incident occurred," which is direction but not a position-on-the-host-vehicle coordinate. The '148's Figures 3A/3B use an 8-position clock notation × a 360° impact-direction convention. That two-axis matrix is the specific point of novelty in the granted claims and, on my verification, is not squarely disclosed by the four verified references. This is almost certainly the limitation the applicant added during prosecution to overcome the cited art, and it is the limitation most likely to defeat a § 103 challenge unless a secondary reference discloses impact-location-resolved crash statistics (SAE J224 / DOT collision-deformation classification, or clock-position crash notation, are the standards a POSITA would consult). This is the single most important gap in the invalidity case and the best claim-preservation argument for the patent owner.

Net assessment: Claims 1 and 10 (independent) are moderately vulnerable — the product seems obvious but the (d)+(e) interdependent limitations are not fully met by the cited art as I verified it. Claims 2–5 and 11–13 are highly vulnerable. Claims 6–9 and 14–16 are vulnerable but for different reasons: Continental '95120 supplies the LPB/LPS architecture, so the fight is over whether a POSITA would convert geometry into a "weighted TTC" comparison — a change-of-units argument that favors the challenger.

---

6. Secondary considerations and expected rebuttals

• No objective indicia on the current record. Zero PTAB proceedings, zero litigation (per the earlier sections), no licensing/NPE acquisition, assignees Hyundai/Kia/Pusan-University holding defensively. There is therefore no evidence of commercial success nexus, copying, industry praise, or unexpected results to weigh against the prima facie case. Absence of indicia makes the KSR motivation analysis carry the day.
• Expected patent-owner rebuttals and how they fare:
  • "The references are from different fields (insurance/telematics vs. AEB)." Weak — KSR expressly rejects rigid field-of-invention lines, and Allstate's own FIG. 8 is directed to adjusting autonomous-vehicle driving on a route.
  • "No motivation to look to Allstate." Weak — the '148 background admits the sensor-only limitation and names Euro NCAP as the driver; plus "same problem" (reduce accidents at dangerous locations).
  • "The G1/G2 tuning gains are critical." Weak — not recited in claims 1/10; tuning is routine optimization (In re Applied Materials).
  • "The two-axis position×direction fatality matrix is non-obvious." Strongest available argument (see §5(2)) — the patent owner should lead with this.
  • § 112 alternative — the specification discloses the "weighted time to collision" concept plus a single numeric example (Eq. 1 with three tune-sets for ASI = 100/50/1). A written-description/enablement squeeze is available as a fallback: either the claim is narrow (requiring the specific crash-matrix data), or the disclosure does not enable the full claim breadth. This is a § 112, not § 103, point but is worth coordinating with the invalidity theory.

---

7. Verification notes (explicit)

Verified in this session (full text read):

• Toyota US 2009/0326820 A1 → US 8,200,419 B2; TTC-based automatic braking; steering-responsive braking duration. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[8200419](/patent/8200419).html · https://uspto.report/patent/app/20090326820
• Honda US 2013/0226408 A1 → US 9,873,437 B2 (also US 10,875,536 B2); coordinated multi-system response to drowsiness/hazard; modifies brake-assist and steering simultaneously. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0226408.html · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9873437](/patent/9873437)
• Continental US 2014/0195120 A1 → US 9,472,102 B2; warning point / LPB / LPS decision points; collision-avoidance charts by condition; ACC gap adaptation. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2014/0195120.html · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9472102](/patent/9472102)
• Allstate US 2017/0241791 A1 ("Risk Maps," app. 15/052,291, filed 2016-02-24) — risk score per road segment, GPS, sensor/insurance-database updating. https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2017/0241791.html
• Allstate US 2017/0236210 A1 → US 11,250,514 B2; risk values per road segment, historical-accident analysis to adjust driving actions over a travel route. https://FreePatentsOnline.com/y2017/0236210.html · https://patents.justia.com/patent/20230005068

NOT independently verified in this session — described only by title/assignee from the '148 front page; no disclosure attributed: US 2016/0150070 A1 (Secure4Drive); KR 10-1665451 B1 (Hyundai Autron); and all thirteen Family-Cites entries, including US 9,718,468 B2, EP 3 159 235 B1, EP 2 085 279 B1, EP 2 363 846 B1, KR 10-1519287 B1, KR 10-1441060 B1, KR 10-2441062 B1, DE 11 2005 003266 T5, JP 2008-129631 A, JP 4,412,356 B2, DE 10 2011 117 297 A1, JP 5,416,193 B2, KR 10-1511860 B1. My search budget was exhausted before I could pull US 2016/0150070, KR 10-1665451, or US 9,718,468, which are the three most likely to move the (d)/(e) analysis.

Excluded as non-prior-art: EP 3 950 428 A1 (Hyundai's own later filing — a family citing, published 2022-02-09, post-dating the 2018 priority) and US 2021/0089629 A1 (Microsoft) which is a cited-by, not prior art against the '148.

Recommendation for the next pass: pull the full text of US 9,718,468 B2 (Verizon), US 2016/0150070 A1 (Secure4Drive), KR 10-1665451 B1 (Hyundai Autron), and the KR/CN prosecution histories of KR 10-2610729 B1 and CN 110843773 B — the last two will show exactly which reference the Korean and Chinese examiners used against the family, which is the cheapest path to the impact-position/direction teaching that §5(2) is missing.