Autonomous Vehicle Maneuvers for Suspicious Activity Deterrence

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Traditional vehicle security systems fail to physically deter suspicious activity effectively, often only alerting or immobilizing the vehicle without preventing theft or damage, and lack adaptive responses to potential criminal activity.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a system that identifies suspicious activity, determines a minimum risk maneuver based on the activity type and location, and performs this maneuver repeatedly until the activity ceases, using autonomous driving systems and machine learning to adapt and update responses in real-time.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional alert or immobilize actions are used, then the system is simple to operate, but the suspicious activity is not effectively deterred

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveeffectiveness of deterring suspicious activityVSAvoidcomplexity of response maneuvers

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically selects and executes different minimum risk maneuvers based on the type and severity of suspicious activity detected. The vehicle can perform various maneuvers such as driving away, reversing, or changing position, adapting the response to the specific threat level and environment, thereby effectively deterring suspicious activity while maintaining operational simplicity through automated decision-making

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The vehicle autonomously detects suspicious activity, determines appropriate minimum risk maneuvers, and executes them without requiring external intervention. The system self-manages the entire process from detection to response execution, reducing operational complexity for the user while ensuring reliable and timely deterrence of suspicious activity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Reliability

If the vehicle performs aggressive maneuvers to deter intruders, then the suspicious activity is effectively stopped, but the risk to the vehicle and intruder increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveeffectiveness of stopping suspicious activityVSAvoidrisk to vehicle and intruder

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system executes minimum risk maneuvers that proactively create physical barriers and increase distance between the vehicle and suspicious activity before the intruder can complete harmful actions. By moving the vehicle out of the intruder's reach and creating protective spacing, the system prevents theft or damage while minimizing the need for aggressive confrontational maneuvers that would increase risk

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses the intruder's suspicious behavior as a trigger to activate protective maneuvers that ultimately protect both the vehicle and the intruder from potential harm. The intruder's presence and actions inadvertently prompt the vehicle to execute safety-oriented maneuvers that create protective distance and prevent escalation to more dangerous situations

Inventive Principle:

Principle #22Blessing in disguise (Convert harm into benefit)

3Object-affected harmful factors

If the vehicle remains stationary to monitor suspicious activity, then the risk to the vehicle is minimized, but the suspicious activity continues unchecked

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverisk to vehicleVSAvoideffectiveness of mitigating suspicious activity

Core Design Contradiction:

Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system executes minimum risk maneuvers in repeated cycles, periodically moving the vehicle to different positions and continuously monitoring the suspicious activity. This periodic movement and repositioning effectively disrupts and deters suspicious activity while maintaining controlled risk levels through systematic, rhythmic execution of safety maneuvers rather than continuous aggressive action

Inventive Principle:

Principle #19Periodic action

4Adaptability or versatility

If a single fixed response maneuver is used, then the system is simple to implement, but the system cannot adapt to different types of suspicious activity

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveability to respond to different suspicious activity typesVSAvoidcomplexity of maneuver selection system

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system changes operational parameters such as maneuver type, speed, distance, and duration based on the detected type and severity of suspicious activity. Different activity types trigger different maneuver parameters, allowing the system to adapt to various threats while managing complexity through parameter-based control rather than requiring entirely different response protocols for each scenario

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS20250289473A1Vehicle systems for responding to suspicious activity around the vehicle

Publication Date: 2025.09.18 TOYOTA MOTOR ENG & MFG NORTH AMERICA INC

AI summary

Systems and methods are provided for responding to suspicious activity occurring at or around a vehicle. The suspicious activity can be identified as occurring in proximity to the vehicle. The vehicle can determine a minimum risk maneuver to mitigate or deter the suspicious activity and perform the first minimum risk maneuver a plurality of times. The vehicle can determine whether the suspicious activity is still occurring and perform the minimum risk maneuver until the suspicious activity is no longer occurring.