Adaptive Moving Object Control Timing for Unmanned Driving

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing self-propelled vehicles controlled by routines at predetermined time intervals may experience delays in operation timing, necessitating a technology that can adjust operations based on real-time conditions and characteristics to ensure timely control.

Innovation Solution

A control device that acquires movement and characteristic information to dynamically select between controlling operations at predetermined intervals, shorter intervals, or at any time, allowing for quick adjustments based on location, risk, and vehicle type.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If control is performed at predetermined time intervals, then the control system is simple and stable, but the timing of operation control may be delayed by the predetermined time period

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol timing accuracyVSAvoidcontrol delay
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The control device dynamically adjusts the control cycle based on the risk level of the moving object's current situation. When risk is high, the control cycle is shortened to enable faster response; when risk is low, the control cycle returns to the normal predetermined interval. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction by making the control timing adaptive rather than fixed, thereby improving control timing accuracy without permanently increasing system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If control is performed more frequently to reduce delay, then control timing accuracy improves, but system complexity and computational load increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol timing accuracyVSAvoidcontrol system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different control frequencies to different operational contexts rather than uniformly increasing frequency across all situations. High-risk situations trigger frequent control cycles, while low-risk situations use normal intervals. This local differentiation resolves the contradiction by concentrating computational resources only where needed, improving control timing accuracy without proportionally increasing overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The control device changes the time interval parameter dynamically based on risk assessment. The system monitors moving object information and adjusts the control cycle length as a variable parameter rather than using a fixed value. This parameter change strategy resolves the contradiction by allowing the system to achieve high control timing accuracy when necessary while maintaining simplicity during normal operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Speed

If control is performed at any timing without predetermined intervals, then response speed improves, but loss of systematic control increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponse speedVSAvoidcontrol system stability
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The system maintains stability through a structured risk assessment mechanism that dynamically determines when immediate control is necessary. Rather than truly random or completely event-driven control, the system uses a systematic evaluation of moving object information to trigger accelerated control cycles only when risk thresholds are exceeded. This dynamic structured approach resolves the contradiction by enabling fast response when needed while preserving overall control system stability through systematic decision-making.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The control device continuously monitors moving object information and uses this feedback to adjust control timing. When the feedback indicates high risk, the system transitions to faster control cycles; when feedback shows normal conditions, it returns to predetermined intervals. This feedback mechanism resolves the contradiction by providing a systematic basis for variable timing that maintains control stability while enabling rapid response when conditions warrant it.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS20260010162A1Control device
Publication Date: 2026.01.08 TOYOTA JIDOSHA KK
  • US20260010162A1 patent drawing
  • US20260010162A1 patent drawing
  • US20260010162A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A control device for controlling an operation of a moving object that can be moved by unmanned driving includes: an acquisition unit that acquires moving object information of at least one of status information on a moving state of the moving object and characteristic information on a characteristic of the moving object; a control unit that performs at least one of (i) a first process of controlling the operation of the moving object at a predetermined first time period using the moving object information; (ii) a second process of controlling the operation of the moving object at a second time period shorter than the first time period; and (iii) a third process of controlling the operation of the moving object at an arbitrary timing without having a predetermined time period, and controls the operation of the moving object.