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 .
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filled on 05/30/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kubo and Dolgov, individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least the amended equality timing limitation for switching to the override driving force characteristic, and the anticipation of driver intent using a sensor detecting the driver’s foot near the accelerator pedal, including without waiting for the driver’s acceleration operation. The Examiner disagrees.
As stated in the non-final Office Action, this limitation is taught or rendered obvious by Kubo in view of Dolgov. Kubo discloses that the control unit determines a target braking/driving force as a function of accelerator pedal position and compares it with the ACC force to determine when to execute override [0029,0050,0058]. Kubo explicitly teaches computing a value defined by a driving force characteristic (target braking/driving force as a function of accelerator pedal position), and comparing this value with the current ACC target braking/driving force to decide when override is executed. Accordingly, Kubo reasonably suggests switching the driving force characteristic at or near the moment when the actual driving force matches the value defined by the override characteristic for the current accelerator pedal position. Dolgov supplements Kubo by teaching that the system determines when to transfer control based on vehicle state and driver indication (col 17, ll 53-57). While Applicant argues that “safe” is vague and does not explicitly specify a timing condition, one of ordinary skill would understand that a “proper and/or safe” transition in this context includes avoiding sudden changes in acceleration or jerk at the moment of transition. To accomplish that, the skilled person would reasonably select a transition condition where the actual driving force (or equivalent torque/acceleration) aligns with the value defined by the new (override) characteristic for the current driver input, so that the handover does not create a step change. Thus, combining Kubo’s explicit force comparison and override trigger based on characteristic-defined values, with Dolgov’s state/indication-based determination of proper/safe transition, would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the transition at the equality point between the actual driving force and the value defined by the override driving force characteristic for the accelerator pedal position at that time, as recited in amended claim 1. In view of the above, Kubo in view of Dolgov teaches or renders obvious the amended limitations of independent claim 1, including the equality-based timing condition and the foot-sensor-based anticipation of driver intent; and the additional limitation of claim 5 (“without waiting for the driver’s acceleration operation”) is an obvious optimization of the same concept, motivated by Dolgov’s teachings on indication-based and proper/safe transitions.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (JP 2020168915 A), in view of Dolgov (US 9342074 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kubo discloses a driving force control device (See Fig.2) configured to causing a vehicle to travel by switching between a manual driving mode for controlling a driving force of the vehicle based on a manual-driving-mode driving force characteristic specifying a vehicle speed [Kubo 0044] “The control unit 120 performs normal traveling control for controlling the acceleration / deceleration of the vehicle 1 in accordance with an acceleration / deceleration operation (specifically, an accelerator operation and a brake operation) by the driver, and An adaptive cruise control (hereinafter, also referred to as ACC ( Adaptive Cruise Control )) corresponding to an example of a cruise control that automatically controls the acceleration / deceleration of the car 1 without depending on an acceleration / deceleration operation by the driver can be switched and executed.” The control unit switches between manual and automated driving modes, where the driving force in manual mode is controlled by driver inputs (accelerator pedal) and in automated mode by ACC. The transition from automated (ACC) to manual driving mode involves an override mechanism, where the vehicle’s control shifts to the driver’s input if it exceeds the automated control’s set values.
an accelerator pedal position, and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle to be generated according to the accelerator pedal position as a target acceleration and an automated driving mode for controlling the driving force by automatic control without depending on an accelerator pedal operation by a driver [Kubo 0044] “An adaptive cruise control (hereinafter, also referred to as ACC ( Adaptive Cruise Control )) corresponding to an example of a cruise control that automatically controls the acceleration / deceleration of the car 1 without depending on an acceleration / deceleration operation by the driver can be switched and executed.” [Kubo 0029] The accelerator opening degree sensor 61 detects an accelerator opening degree, which is an operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 by the driver, and outputs a detection result. [Kubo 0050] “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the relationship between the accelerator opening degree and the target braking / driving force in each of the normal characteristic and the one pedal characteristic.
change when the automated driving mode is shifted to the manual driving mode, the driving force from a driving force generated in the automated driving mode to a driving force generated in the manual driving mode, wherein when the automated driving mode is shifted to the manual driving mode, [Kubo 0046] “In a case where a specific operation such as a brake
operation is performed by the driver during execution of the ACC, the control unit
120 stops the ACC and performs switching to the normal traveling control.”
wherein in response to the driver requesting acceleration during the automated driving mode and when the automated driving mode is shifted to the manual driving mode [Kubo 0044] “An adaptive cruise control (hereinafter, also referred to as ACC ( Adaptive Cruise Control )) corresponding to an example of a cruise control that automatically controls the acceleration / deceleration of the car 1 without depending on an acceleration / deceleration operation by the driver can be switched and executed (i.e., automated driving mode).” [Kubo 0046] “In a case where a specific operation such as a brake operation is performed by the driver during execution of the ACC, the control unit 120 stops the ACC and performs switching to the normal traveling control (i.e., manual driving mode)”
the driving force is controlled based on an override driving force characteristic specifying the target acceleration according to the vehicle speed, the accelerator pedal position, and a traveling resistance to the vehicle, [Kubo 0058] “The control unit 120 is configured
to when the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening
exceeds the target braking / driving force in ACC, override for controlling acceleration / deceleration of the vehicle 1 based on the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening is executed. Specifically, control unit 120 determines the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator pedal position based on the detected accelerator pedal position, and compares the target braking / driving force with the target braking / driving force in ACC. When it is determined that the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening degree exceeds the target braking / driving force in the ACC, the override is executed.” The override driving force characteristics are based on the accelerator pedal position this system adjusts the target acceleration according to the drivers input vehicle speed. The control unit determines the driving force based on accelerator pedal position and compares the target braking and driving force in ACC mode. A person that is skilled in the art would understand that when the vehicle is switched to ACC it will control the speed of the vehicle automatically taking into account factors such as road conditions such as traveling uphill or downhill.
the longitudinal acceleration at a fully closed accelerator pedal position in the override driving force characteristic is higher than the longitudinal acceleration at the fully closed accelerator pedal position in the manual-driving-mode driving force characteristic [Kubo 0054] “Specifically, the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening degree is on the braking side when the accelerator opening degree is 0% and increases to exceed 0% as the accelerator opening degree increases.” By being 0% open, the acceleration is “fully closed” as claimed.
an inclination of a graph representing a relationship between the accelerator pedal position and the longitudinal acceleration in the override driving force characteristic is smaller than the inclination of the graph representing the relationship between the accelerator pedal position and the longitudinal acceleration in the manual-driving-mode driving force characteristic at a same accelerator pedal position. [Kubo 0050] “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example of the relationship between the accelerator opening degree and the target braking / driving force in each of the normal characteristic and the one pedal characteristic. In Fig.3, the relation of the
accelerator opening and target braking/driving force in the characteristic is usually shown by the line L11, and the relation of the accelerator opening and target braking/driving force in 1 pedal characteristic is shown by the line L21.”
and a condition for changing to the override driving force characteristic during the automated driving mode is satisfied when an intention of the driver to accelerate is anticipated by a sensor in the vehicle that detects that a foot of the driver is close to an accelerator pedal of the vehicle Kubo [0029] "The accelerator opening degree sensor 61 detects an accelerator opening degree, which is an operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 by the driver, and outputs a detection result." This explicitly discloses pedal depression sensing.
Kubo [0046] “In a case where a specific operation such as a brake operation is performed by the driver during execution of the ACC, the control unit 120 stops the ACC and performs switching to the normal traveling control.” The system anticipates driver actions (braking or accelerating) and transitions control accordingly. Detecting foot proximity provides an earlier signal of driver intent, aligning with Kubo’s goal of smooth transitions.
Kubo [0058] "When the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening exceeds the target braking / driving force in ACC, override for controlling acceleration /deceleration of the vehicle 1 based on the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening is executed." This discloses an override condition based on driver input, which shows that detecting foot proximity would serve as an additional anticipatory signal to trigger the override condition sooner.
Kubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “a driving force characteristic of the vehicle is switched to the override driving force characteristic when a value of an actual driving force at a start time of the driver's acceleration operation is equal to a value defined by the override driving force characteristic for the accelerator pedal position at that time.”
However, Dolgov teaches equivalent teachings a driving force characteristic of the vehicle is switched to the override driving force characteristic when a value of an actual driving force at a start time of the driver's acceleration operation is equal to a value defined by the override driving force characteristic for the accelerator pedal position at that time (Col. 18 II. 3-7) “The computing device may determine the instructions corresponding to the transition of control based on the indication and state of the vehicle. The computing device may determine instructions based on only the indication, only the state of vehicle, or a combination.” The system evaluates the driver’s input (e.g., accelerator or brake) and determines if the override characteristic should take over. This is equivalent to the system evaluating if the force or input from the driver during automated driving requires the transition. (Col. 17 II. 53-57) “The computing device may be configured to determine if a transition of control over to the driver is proper and/or safe. The computing device may be configured to determine if the state of the vehicle and the type of indication may permit a safe transition.” The system checks if it's safe and proper to make the transition based on the current state of the vehicle, which could include conditions like the actual driving force matching the target force in the override characteristic. Dolgov teaches that transition timing is based on vehicle state and indication (driver actions/intention), with the goal of a proper/safe transition. To avoid a sudden change in acceleration, a skilled person in the art would reasonably select a transition point where the actual driving force matches the value defined by the new characteristic for the current pedal position. Thus, Kubo’s comparison mechanism combined with Dolgov’s state-based safe transition guidance renders obvious switching at the equality point described in the amended limitation.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to make the system a driving force characteristic of the vehicle is switched to the override driving force characteristic when a value of an actual driving force at a start time of the driver's acceleration operation is equal to a value defined by the override driving force characteristic for the accelerator pedal position at that time.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to improve operational effectiveness and safety (Col. 17 II. 55-57) “The computing device may be configured to determine if the state of the vehicle and the type of indication may permit a safe transition.”
Regarding Claim 2 Kubo discloses the driving force control device according to claim 1, wherein the longitudinal acceleration at the fully closed accelerator pedal position in the override driving force characteristic is equal to or greater than zero. [Kubo 0054] “the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening degree is on the braking side when the accelerator opening degree is 0 [%], and increases to exceed 0 [N] as the accelerator opening degree increases. Therefore, in the accelerator opening whose target braking/driving force is smaller than the accelerator opening used as 0 [N].” The Longitudinal acceleration at a fully closed accelerator pedal position in the override driving force characteristic is equal to or greater than zero. At a fully closed accelerator pedal position, the driving force (or braking force) can be zero or positive.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to make the system longitudinal acceleration at the fully closed accelerator pedal position in the override driving force characteristic is equal to or greater than zero.
Regarding Claim 3, Kubo discloses the driving force control device according to claim 1, wherein, the override driving force characteristic is switched to the manual-driving-mode driving force characteristic at a time when a difference between the driving force based on the override driving force characteristic and the driving force based on the manual- driving-mode driving force characteristic is equal to or less than a predetermined value. [Kubo 0061] “When the normal mode is set as the control mode in the normal travel control and the normal characteristic is used as the accelerator opening degree characteristic for override, the accelerator opening degree corresponding to the target braking / driving force F _ ACC is the opening degree AO11. On the other hand, in the example shown in FIG. 3, the accelerator opening degree corresponding to the target braking / driving force F _ ACC in the ACC with the one pedal characteristic indicated by the line L21 is an opening degree AO11 larger than the opening degree AO21. Therefore, when the one pedal mode is set as the control mode in the normal travel control and the one pedal characteristic is used as the accelerator opening degree characteristic for override, the accelerator opening degree corresponding to the target braking / driving force F _ ACC is an opening degree AO21 larger than the opening degree AO11.” The control characteristics transition based on the relative differences between target forces in various modes of controlling the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to make the system override driving force characteristic is switched to the manual-driving-mode driving force characteristic at a time when a difference between the driving force based on the override driving force characteristic and the driving force based on the manual- driving-mode driving force characteristic is equal to or less than a predetermined value.
Regarding Claim 4, The claim recites the parallel limitations in claim 3, respectively for
the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected using the same rational reasoning.
Regarding Claim 5, Kubo discloses the driving force control device according to claim 1, wherein the condition for changing to the override driving force characteristic during the automated driving mode … without waiting for the driver's acceleration operation by a sensor in the vehicle that detects that a foot of the driver is close to an accelerator pedal of the vehicle. [Kubo 0029] The accelerator opening degree sensor 61 detects an accelerator opening degree, which is an operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 by the driver, and outputs a detection result. [Kubo 0046] “In a case where a specific operation such as a brake operation is performed by the driver during execution of the ACC, the control unit 120 stops the ACC and performs switching to the normal traveling control.” [Kubo 0058] “The control unit 120 is configured to when the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening exceeds the target braking / driving force in ACC, override for controlling acceleration / deceleration of the vehicle 1 based on the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening is executed. Specifically, control unit 120 determines the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator pedal position based on the detected accelerator pedal position, and compares the target braking / driving force with the target braking / driving force in ACC. When it is determined that the target braking / driving force corresponding to the accelerator opening degree exceeds the target braking / driving force in the ACC, the override is executed.” Kubo teaches continuous monitoring of driver actions at the pedal during ACC and switching modes based on those actions.
Kubo does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein the condition is satisfied when an intention of the driver to accelerate is anticipated”
However, Dolgov teaches equivalent teachings wherein the condition is satisfied when an intention of the driver to accelerate is anticipated (Col. 18 II. 3-7) “The computing device may determine the instructions corresponding to the transition of control based on the indication and state of the vehicle. The computing device may determine instructions based on only the indication, only the state of vehicle, or a combination.” The system evaluates the driver’s input (e.g., accelerator or brake) and determines if the override characteristic should take over. (Col. 17 II. 53-57) “The computing device may be configured to determine if a transition of control over to the driver is proper and/or safe. The computing device may be configured to determine if the state of the vehicle and the type of indication may permit a safe transition.” Dolgov teaches the anticipatory behavior of the driver. A skilled person in the art, would find it obvious to use earlier indications of driver intent such as foot proximity rather than waiting for full pedal depression. Thus, the feature of satisfying the condition “without waiting for the driver’s acceleration operation” using a foot proximity sensor is an obvious refinement of Kubo’s pedal-based detection in light of Dolgov’s indication-based transition control.
It would have been obvious to a person that is skilled in the art prior to the effective filling date to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to make the system wherein the condition for changing to the override driving force characteristic during the automated driving mode wherein the condition is satisfied when an intention of the driver to accelerate is anticipated without waiting for the driver's acceleration operation by a sensor in the vehicle that detects that a foot of the driver is close to an accelerator pedal of the vehicle.
A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Kubo and Dolgov teachings to improve operational effectiveness and safety (Col. 17 II. 55-57) “The computing device may be configured to determine if the state of the vehicle and the type of indication may permit a safe transition.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662