DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 08/13/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is the fifth action on the merits.
Claim 1 has been amended. Thus, claims 1-5 and 7-8 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of Applicant’s reply, filed 07/08/2025, with respect to the interpretation of various claim limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments as applied to the “control unit” limitation in claims 1, 3, 4, 5 are not persuasive and the interpretation of “control unit” under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments as applied to the “calculation unit” limitation in claim 5 are not persuasive and the interpretation of “calculation unit” under 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments as applied to the “driver identifying unit” limitation in claim 7 are not persuasive and the interpretation of “driver identifying unit” under 112(f) is maintained.
Regarding the “control unit,” “calculation unit,” and “driver identifying unit” limitations, Applicant contends that the 112(f) interpretation of these limitations are precluded because they recite sufficient structure and are analogous to the terms outlined by the MPEP that were found to not invoke 112(f). The Office respectfully disagrees. The use of the words “control unit,” “calculation unit,” and “driver identifying unit” merely amount to generic placeholders (nonce terms or non-structural terms having no specific structural meaning). These terms, when read in light of the specification, do not connote sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application of the 112(f) interpretation. Furthermore, these terms are modified by functional language but are not modified by sufficient structure in view of the language in claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8. Applicant has not amended the claim limitations to avoid being interpreted under 112(f), and Applicant has not presented a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to avoid being interpreted under 112(f). Thus, the interpretation of the “control unit,” “calculation unit,” and “driver identifying unit” limitations under 112(f) are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Applicant’s reply, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below) is made for claim 1 in view of Ikegami (JP 2015079369 A).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control unit configured to…” in claims 1, 3, 4, 5
“a calculation unit configured to…” in claim 5
“a driver identifying unit configured to…” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. (Par. 15 of the specification (“The vehicle control device 100 is configured as a microcomputer (hereinafter abbreviated as an MC) incorporating a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, and the like, and includes a control unit 101, a calculation unit 102, and a storage unit 103. The control unit 101 implements avoidance or reduction of collision damage by controlling the brake or the like, and sequentially performs initial braking and main braking on the vehicle 1. The calculation unit 102 performs each calculation related to the control of the vehicle 1. The storage unit 103 is composed of a non-volatile memory and stores each information including the braking operation information of the driver.”); Par. 78 of the specification (“In this case, as a driver identification method, for example, a unique vehicle key is assigned to each driver, and the vehicle control device 100 identifies the driver with the key and grasps a driver change. That is, in this case, the vehicle control device 100 functions as a driver identification unit that identifies the driver. In addition to the key, information such as an IC card and fingerprint authentication that can identify the driver individually is registered in advance, and the vehicle control device 100 identifies the driver with the IC card and fingerprint authentication and acquires the braking operation timing information and the like of each driver from the storage unit 103.))
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (JP 07069188 A) in view of Takeuchi (US 2009/0132139 A1), Oda (US 2013/0090804 A1), Higashitani (US 2019/0299947 A1), Ikegami (JP 2015079369 A), and Askeland (US 10,471,953). [Note that the English translation of Ota provided by Applicant on 10/13/2020 is being relied upon herein].
Regarding claim 1, Ota discloses (Ota does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
A vehicle control device that performs deceleration control of a vehicle operated by a driver based on a distance and a relative speed between the vehicle and an obstacle in front of the vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising a control unit configured to sequentially perform initial braking and main braking on the vehicle, (Ota - control unit to perform deceleration based on distance and relative speed between vehicle and obstacle -> 40-41; initial braking and main braking for a vehicle operated by a driver -> Par. 47-49)
wherein the control unit controls a timing of the initial braking based (Ota - Overview ("To inform a driver of the operation start of an automatic brake in all the operation regions, by installing an auxiliary brake power varying means for varying proportionately to vehicle speed the brake power in the auxiliary brake application which is carried out before the main brake application."); Par. 9 ("In addition, in the automatic brake device having the above configuration, the vehicle weight detecting means 5 for detecting the vehicle weight is provided, and the automatic braking device for correcting the braking force at the time of the preliminary braking according to the vehicle weight is effective for ensuring a more reliable perception effect of the preliminary braking force changing means 4."); Par. 61, ("the vehicle weight W is relatively easily and significantly varied due to the influence of the passenger and the load to be loaded"); Par. 62 ("in order to always maintain a constant level of perceived effect on the driver by pre-braking, it is necessary to take into consideration the influence of the vehicle weight W"))
Takeuchi teaches a vehicle controller, control method, and computer program, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
the vehicle control device further comprising a storage unit having a memory configured to store braking operation information of the driver (Takeuchi - storage unit having memory to store driving operation history of driver -> Par. 51, Par. 56-57; adjust acceleration/deceleration limit control of initial braking based on history of how driver previously performed acceleration/deceleration -> Par. 70, Par. 97, Par. 106, Par. 141, Par. 165)
(Takeuchi - storage unit to store driving operation history of driver -> Par. 51, Par. 56; adjust acceleration/deceleration limit control of initial braking based on history of how driver previously performed acceleration/deceleration -> Par. 70, Par. 97, Par. 106, Par. 141, Par. 165)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include the storage unit to store braking operation information of the driver and consideration of previously generated acceleration/deceleration as taught by Takeuchi.
One would be motivated to make this modification so maneuvering limits may be set based on personal preferences (Askeland - Col. 3 lines 1-22, Col. 4 lines 34-60). Furthermore, this modification would further stabilize vehicle control and prevent a driver from feeling discomfort (Takeuchi - Par. 14 ("Further, according to a vehicle control system of a fifth aspect, when traveling through consecutive curves, it is possible to prevent that an acceleration limit is performed again just after an acceleration limit on the vehicle is released. Therefore, behavior of the vehicle can be stabilized, and it would not give the driver a feeling of discomfort due to continuous control of the vehicle.")). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Takeuchi.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Takeuchi from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Oda teaches an electronic control unit for vehicle, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
the vehicle control device further comprising a storage unit having a memory configured to store (Oda - storage unit having memory -> Par. 41-46; vehicle operation information stored when determination condition defined by a threshold is satisfied -> Par. 42-46; vehicle speed threshold used as condition -> Par. 196; upward/downward gradient threshold used as condition -> Par. 39, Par. 70-77)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include configuring the storage unit to store operation information of the driver when a determination condition is satisfied as taught by Oda.
One would be motivated to make this modification so that only relevant vehicle operation data is stored in order to save memory and prevent important data from being overwritten (Oda – Par. 8). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Oda.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Oda from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Higashitani, teaches a vehicle control device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
wherein the control unit controls a timing of the initial braking based (Higashitani - Par. 68-69 ("The automatic driving control part 102 in the vehicle control device 10 determines the braking operation value and the braking operation timing on the basis of the weight of the trailer 4."); Par. 140 ("In order to avoid the uncomfortable driving of the truck tractor 2, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation at timing t1. Specifically, when compared with the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation to be used when the truck tractor 2 is not hauling/pulling the trailer 4, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation while considering an additional weight value of the trailer 4 in addition to the overall weight value of the truck tractor 2 only."))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include controlling the timing of braking based on weight as taught by Higashitani.
One would be motivated to make this modification to increase the brake responsiveness of the vehicle and provide smooth operation (Higashitani - Par. 69 ("This control makes it possible to increase the brake responsiveness of the trailer 4."); Par. 140 ("This makes it possible for the truck tractor 2 to smoothly reach the target acceleration value at timing t3 and possible to provide comfortable driving because the truck tractor 2 and the trailer 4 have smooth acceleration during the period counted from timing t1 to timing t3. It is acceptable to increase the acceleration of the truck tractor 1 at a constant rate or to multiply the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation by a coefficient of more than 1 so as to provide smooth acceleration of the truck tractor 2.")). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Higashitani.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Higashitani from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Ikegami teaches a driving assisting device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
wherein the control unit controls a timing of the initial braking based at least in part on a presence of a passenger standing within the vehicle and an estimated weight of the vehicle including a weight of an object to be loaded (Ikegami - timing of initial braking based on vehicle's total weight (including load) and whether passenger is standing -> Par. 81-84, Par. 86-93)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to control timing of initial braking based on a presence of a passenger standing within the vehicle as taught by Ikegami.
One would be motivated to make this modification to ensure safety for passengers and smooth control (Ikegami – Par. 88, Par. 93). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Ikegami.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle passenger safety and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Ikegami from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Askeland teaches an occupant aware braking system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
wherein when a change in the weight of the object to be loaded falls within a predetermined range, the control unit sets a maximum value of an absolute value of acceleration/deceleration (change in weight -> Askeland - Col. 12, lines 3-21, change in weight aka classification ("As the name implies, the seat weight sensor 387 can detect the weight of an object in the seat. In some examples, the seat weight sensor 387 can be a simple weight sensitive switch with a threshold weight. In this configuration, the seat weight sensor 387 may simply be closed when a weight above a threshold weight (e.g., 70 lbs.) is in the seat and open when the weight in the seat is below this threshold (or vice-versa). In other examples, the seat weight sensor 387 can comprise a strain gauge, or other weight sensor, capable of determining the actual weight of the object or passenger in the seat. These inputs 386, 387 can aid the cargo classification system 400 (discussed below) to classify the cargo."); Col. 15, lines 31-48 ("As mentioned above, the maximum acceleration 420 can be adjusted based in part on whether the vehicle 110 is empty or has cargo and, if it has cargo, the classification thereof (e.g., person, pet, box, papers, etc.)."); max value -> Askeland - Col. 2, lines 40-67 ("Thus, an autonomous vehicle may have at least two sets of maneuvering rules: one set of rules governing maximum acceleration rates when carrying cargo (whether passengers or other cargo) and another set of rules governing maximum acceleration rates when empty. Indeed, the autonomous vehicle may also have multiple rules based on the classification of the cargo."))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include setting a maximum value for deceleration based on change in weight as taught by Askeland.
One would be motivated to make this modification to ensure passenger comfort and safety (Askeland - Col. 19, lines 26-43 ("As a result, the correlation module 414 provides a maximum acceleration 420 (e.g., 4.5 m/s.sup.2) associated with established standards for passenger comfort and safety.")). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Askeland.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Askeland from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 4, Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, and Askeland teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Ota does not disclose:
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein when a number of braking operations of the driver stored in the storage unit is less than a predetermined number, the control unit sets a predetermined braking operation timing as an initial braking timing.
Takeuchi teaches a vehicle controller, control method, and computer program, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein when a number of braking operations of the driver stored in the storage unit is less than a predetermined number, the control unit sets a predetermined braking operation timing as an initial braking timing. (less than -> (Takeuchi - Par. 121 ("As a result, when it is determined that the counter value is equal to or larger than the predetermined value (S74: YES), the CPU 41 proceeds to S75. Otherwise, when it is determined that the counter value is smaller than the predetermined value (S74: NO), the CPU 41 proceeds to S65 without performing reflection on the vehicle control this time since the number of samples is small."); predetermined timing -> ("In S75, the CPU 41 reads the deceleration control start distance Ps1 stored in the vehicle operation history DB 37 and substitutes therein the average Ps1_av of deceleration start points of a predetermined number of times in the past, which is calculated in the above S73. Note that the initial value of the Ps1 is set to a predetermined value in advance."))
Regarding claim 5, Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, and Askeland teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, and Ota further discloses (Ota does not disclose the strikethrough portions):
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising a calculation unit configured to calculate the estimated weight of the vehicle (Ota - Par. 63 ("Here, as the vehicle weight detection device 104, for example, a vehicle weight calculation device that calculates a vehicle weight based on an average relative distance between a wheel and a vehicle body and a spring force of a suspension mechanism, a device that detects a distortion of a suspension mechanism and obtains it, or a device that obtains a vehicle weight based on an air pressure when an air spring is used as a suspension mechanism can be applied.")),
wherein the control unit controls an initial braking timing based on the estimated weight of the vehicle calculated by the calculation unit (Ota - Overview ("To inform a driver of the operation start of an automatic brake in all the operation regions, by installing an auxiliary brake power varying means for varying proportionately to vehicle speed the brake power in the auxiliary brake application which is carried out before the main brake application."); Par. 9 ("In addition, in the automatic brake device having the above configuration, the vehicle weight detecting means 5 for detecting the vehicle weight is provided, and the automatic braking device for correcting the braking force at the time of the preliminary braking according to the vehicle weight is effective for ensuring a more reliable perception effect of the preliminary braking force changing means 4."); Par. 61, ("the vehicle weight W is relatively easily and significantly varied due to the influence of the passenger and the load to be loaded"); Par. 62 ("in order to always maintain a constant level of perceived effect on the driver by pre-braking, it is necessary to take into consideration the influence of the vehicle weight W"))
Higashitani, teaches a vehicle control device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising a calculation unit configured to calculate the estimated weight of the vehicle including the weight of the object to be loaded, (Higashitani - Par. 68-69 ("The automatic driving control part 102 in the vehicle control device 10 determines the braking operation value and the braking operation timing on the basis of the weight of the trailer 4."); Par. 140 ("In order to avoid the uncomfortable driving of the truck tractor 2, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation at timing t1. Specifically, when compared with the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation to be used when the truck tractor 2 is not hauling/pulling the trailer 4, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation while considering an additional weight value of the trailer 4 in addition to the overall weight value of the truck tractor 2 only."))
wherein the control unit controls an initial braking timing based on the estimated weight of the vehicle calculated by the calculation unit. (Higashitani - Par. 68-69 ("The automatic driving control part 102 in the vehicle control device 10 determines the braking operation value and the braking operation timing on the basis of the weight of the trailer 4."); Par. 140 ("In order to avoid the uncomfortable driving of the truck tractor 2, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation at timing t1. Specifically, when compared with the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation to be used when the truck tractor 2 is not hauling/pulling the trailer 4, the automatic driving control part 102 adjusts the initial instruction value of the driving and braking operation while considering an additional weight value of the trailer 4 in addition to the overall weight value of the truck tractor 2 only."))
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, and Askeland as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan (US 5,627,510).
Regarding claim 3, Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, and Askeland teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but Ota does not disclose:
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein when a number of braking operations of the driver stored in the storage unit is not less than a predetermined number, the control unit estimates a braking operation timing of the driver based on the braking operation information of the driver stored in the storage unit, and sets a second timing that is later than an estimated braking operation timing as an initial braking timing.
Takeuchi teaches a vehicle controller, control method, and computer program, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein when a number of braking operations of the driver stored in the storage unit is not less than a predetermined number, the control unit estimates a braking operation timing of the driver based on the braking operation information of the driver stored in the storage unit, (estimates a braking operation timing -> Fig. 10; Takeuchi - Par. 121 ("Thereafter, in S74, the CPU 41 reads the deceleration start point accumulation counter Cnt1 stored in the RAM 42 and determines whether or not the counter value is equal to or larger than a predetermined value (for example, ten times or larger). As a result, when it is determined that the counter value is equal to or larger than the predetermined value (S74: YES), the CPU 41 proceeds to S75. Otherwise, when it is determined that the counter value is smaller than the predetermined value (S74: NO), the CPU 41 proceeds to S65 without performing reflection on the vehicle control this time since the number of samples is small."))
Yuan teaches a vehicular safety distance alarm system, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
(set timing later -> Yuan - Col. 9, lines 15-22 ("The present invention can work in conjunction with an automatic brake system of a vehicle. When your car is too close to the front object or vehicle and the present invention generates and alarm signal, the automatic brake will start to work automatically (or a some time later so the driver will have a chance to adjust his speed himself). This auto-brake system will be very effective at preventing an accident, especially a front end accident."))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include setting the braking timing later as taught by Yuan.
One would be motivated to make this modification so that the driver will have a chance to adjust speed before the automatic system does (Yuan - Col. 9, lines 15-22 ("The present invention can work in conjunction with an automatic brake system of a vehicle. When your car is too close to the front object or vehicle and the present invention generates and alarm signal, the automatic brake will start to work automatically (or a some time later so the driver will have a chance to adjust his speed himself). This auto-brake system will be very effective at preventing an accident, especially a front end accident.")). This would ensure that the automatic braking will not prematurely brake for the driver and cause discomfort. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Yuan.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Yuan from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Claim 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, Askeland, and Yuan as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shiiba (JP 2006151126 A). [Note that the English translation of Shiiba provided by Applicant on 10/13/2020 is being relied upon herein].
Regarding claim 7, Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, Askeland, and Yuan teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 3, but Ota does not disclose:
The vehicle control device according to claim 3, further comprising a driver identifying unit configured to identify the driver operating the vehicle,
wherein the storage unit has an area for storing driver's braking operation information for each driver.
Shiiba teaches a control dependence detecting device, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The vehicle control device according to claim 3, further comprising a driver identifying unit configured to identify the driver operating the vehicle, (Shiiba - Par. 9 ("The driver control dependence detecting device of the present invention further includes a driver identification unit for identifying the driver of the vehicle, and the storage unit indicates the possibility of the estimated collision for each driver. The data is stored, and the detection unit refers to the data stored for each driver, and when the estimated possibility of collision increases, the driver excessively controls the deceleration control. It is characterized by detecting dependence."))
wherein the storage unit has an area for storing driver's braking operation information for each driver (Shiiba - Par. 9 ("The driver control dependence detecting device of the present invention further includes a driver identification unit for identifying the driver of the vehicle, and the storage unit indicates the possibility of the estimated collision for each driver. The data is stored, and the detection unit refers to the data stored for each driver, and when the estimated possibility of collision increases, the driver excessively controls the deceleration control. It is characterized by detecting dependence."))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ota to include the driver identifying unit as taught by Shiiba.
One would be motivated to make this modification for the convenience of the driver (Shiiba - Par. 4 ("In deceleration control that applies deceleration to the host vehicle in order to make the positional relationship between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle appropriate, the greater the deceleration that is applied to the host vehicle by deceleration control, the area that can be handled by the deceleration control (For example, when the distance between the vehicles is very short, the relative vehicle speed is very large, or the accelerator is turned off very late, the convenience of the driver is improved.")). By identifying a specific driver and storing driver specific information, the vehicle better accommodates the tendencies of that specific driver. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ota and Shiiba.
Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
The motivation to combine Ota and Shiiba from the 103 rejection of this claim is similarly applied to the rest of the 103 rejections below.
Regarding claim 8, Ota, Takeuchi, Oda, Higashitani, Ikegami, Askeland, Yuan, and Shiiba teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above with respect to claim 7, but Ota does not disclose:
The vehicle control device according to claim 7, wherein the storage unit holds the driver's braking operation information even after power of the vehicle is stopped and does not store the driver's braking operation information when the power of the vehicle is stopped.
Takeuchi teaches a vehicle controller, control method, and computer program, in the same field of endeavor, comprising:
The vehicle control device according to claim 7, wherein the storage unit holds the driver's braking operation information even after power of the vehicle is stopped and does not store the driver's braking operation information when the power of the vehicle is stopped. (hold info -> Takeuchi - Par. 56 ("Further, the vehicle operation history DB 37 is a database in which a driving operation history of the driver in the past are stored. Specifically, when the vehicle 2 traveled through a curve section in the past, "(a) deceleration start point where the driver started a deceleration operation" and "(b) acceleration start point where the driver started an acceleration operation after performing the deceleration operation" are stored cumulatively. Then the navigation ECU 23 adjusts the timing to perform deceleration control (acceleration control) and the timing to permit acceleration based on the vehicle operation history stored in the vehicle operation history DB 37."); stop collecting -> Takeuchi - Fig. 4, end algorithm when ignition off (S8); Par. 72 ("Next, in S8, the CPU 41 determines whether the ignition of the vehicle is turned off or not. Then, when the ignition of the vehicle is turned off (S8: YES), the vehicle control processing is finished. Otherwise, when the ignition of the vehicle is not turned off (S8: NO), the CPU 41 returns to S3, and performs detection of a curve again based on a new vehicle position."))
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICAH C CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8983. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICAH CHUEN-HIM CHENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669