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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillenbrand (WO 2013060530 A1), in view of Oka (US 20060047409 A1), and in further view of Arai (US 20060100769 A1).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Hillenbrand teaches a vehicle traveling control device that executes follow-up traveling control in which an own vehicle is made to travel following a preceding vehicle under a condition that a speed of the own vehicle is no greater than a predetermined speed and an inter- vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is no greater than a predetermined distance, the vehicle traveling control device comprising an electronic control unit configured to: determine whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle (Hillenbrand: [0014] and [0024] Note that determining a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle.);
In response to determining that there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle: determine whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed; in response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed, execute the first follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0024] Note that comparing the vehicle speed VEGO with the predetermined activation speed if a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed in response to traffic congestion. Also, note that activating traffic jam assistance when VEGO<VAKT is equivalent to executing follow-up traveling control in response to determining the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is not less than the threshold speed: determine whether the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than a threshold distance (Hillenbrand: [0027] Note that Hillenbrand determines whether the vehicle speed VEGO and distance from the vehicle have both become too great. This determination is equivalent to determining whether the inter-vehicle distance is greater than a threshold distance in responses to a determination the vehicle speed is not less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, execute a second follow-up traveling control… (Hillenbrand: [0044]);
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than the threshold distance, end the follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0027] and [0044]).
Hillenbrand fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, execute a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance; and… execute a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oka teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, execute a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance… (Oka: [0033] and [0052] Note that the vehicle passing the portion of traffic congestion is equivalent to determining there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle. Also, note that Oka determines the probability a vehicle cuts in front of the own vehicle from the lane with traffic congestion. This is equivalent to traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle because the traffic (cut-in vehicle) occurs ahead of the vehicle, even if it is in a different lane.);
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, execute a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle (Oka: [0020], [0031], and [0052]).
Hillenbrand and Oka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand to incorporate the teachings of Oka to execute follow-up traveling control in response to determining that is no traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle and execute the follow-up traveling control at a constant speed because it provides the benefit of automatically controlling the vehicle to avoid colliding with vehicles changing lanes in front of the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers, vehicles, and surroundings.
Hillenbrand and Oka fail to explicitly teach the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, execute a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance, and the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle (Arai: [0063] Note that Figs. 3-5 show the target inter-vehicle distance set increases as the speed of the own vehicle increases.).
Hillenbrand, Oka, and Arai are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand and Oka to incorporate the teachings of Arai to set the target inter-vehicle distance based on the speed of the own vehicle because it provides the benefit of preventing excessive deceleration and increases the comfort and safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
8. Regarding Claim 2, Hillenbrand, Oka, and Arai remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Hillenbrand teaches in response to detecting the presence of the traffic congestion based on the traffic congestion information while the follow-up traveling control is being executed, and in response to the speed of the own vehicle reaching the reference speed, the electronic control unit continues the follow-up traveling control such that the inter-vehicle distance does not exceed the reference distance, while maintaining the speed of the own vehicle (Hillenbrand: [0027] and [0044] Note that when the distance in front of the vehicle is checked with the distance limit [reference distance] and not above the limit, the automatic traffic control is continued.).
9. Regarding Claim 3, Hillenbrand teaches a vehicle traveling control method of a vehicle traveling control device that executes follow-up traveling control in which an own vehicle is made to travel following a preceding vehicle under a condition that a speed of the own vehicle is no greater than a predetermined speed and an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is no greater than a predetermined distance, the vehicle traveling control method comprising: determining whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle (Hillenbrand: [0014] and [0024] Note that determining a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle.);
In response to determining that there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle: determining whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed; in response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed, executing the first follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0024] Note that comparing the vehicle speed VEGO with the predetermined activation speed if a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed in response to traffic congestion. Also, note that activating traffic jam assistance when VEGO<VAKT is equivalent to executing follow-up traveling control in response to determining the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is not less than the threshold speed: determining whether the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than a threshold distance (Hillenbrand: [0027] Note that Hillenbrand determines whether the vehicle speed VEGO and distance from the vehicle have both become too great. This determination is equivalent to determining whether the inter-vehicle distance is greater than a threshold distance in responses to a determination the vehicle speed is not less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, executing the follow-up traveling control… (Hillenbrand: [0044]).
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than the threshold distance, ending the follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0027] and [0044]).
Hillenbrand fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance; and… executing a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oka teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance… (Oka: [0033] and [0052] Note that the vehicle passing the portion of traffic congestion is equivalent to determining there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle. Also, note that Oka determines the probability a vehicle cuts in front of the own vehicle from the lane with traffic congestion. This is equivalent to traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle because the traffic (cut-in vehicle) occurs ahead of the vehicle, even if it is in a different lane.);
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, executing a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle (Oka: [0020], [0031], and [0052]).
Hillenbrand and Oka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand to incorporate the teachings of Oka to execute follow-up traveling control in response to determining that is no traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle and execute the follow-up traveling control at a constant speed because it provides the benefit of automatically controlling the vehicle to avoid colliding with vehicles changing lanes in front of the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers, vehicles, and surroundings.
Hillenbrand and Oka fail to explicitly teach the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance, and the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle (Arai: [0063] Note that Figs. 3-5 show the target inter-vehicle distance set increases as the speed of the own vehicle increases.).
Hillenbrand, Oka, and Arai are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand and Oka to incorporate the teachings of Arai to set the target inter-vehicle distance based on the speed of the own vehicle because it provides the benefit of preventing excessive deceleration and increases the comfort and safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
10. Regarding Claim 4, Hillenbrand teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a vehicle traveling control device that executes follow- up traveling control in which an own vehicle is made to travel following a preceding vehicle under a condition that a speed of the own vehicle is no greater than a predetermined speed and an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is no greater than a predetermined distance, the instructions causing the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: determining whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle (Hillenbrand: [0014] and [0024] Note that determining a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle.);
In response to determining that there is traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle: determine whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed; in response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed, execute the first follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0024] Note that comparing the vehicle speed VEGO with the predetermined activation speed if a traffic jam is detected is equivalent to determining whether a speed of the own vehicle is less than a threshold speed in response to traffic congestion. Also, note that activating traffic jam assistance when VEGO<VAKT is equivalent to executing follow-up traveling control in response to determining the speed of the own vehicle is less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the speed of the own vehicle is not less than the threshold speed: determine whether the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than a threshold distance (Hillenbrand: [0027] Note that Hillenbrand determines whether the vehicle speed VEGO and distance from the vehicle have both become too great. This determination is equivalent to determining whether the inter-vehicle distance is greater than a threshold distance in responses to a determination the vehicle speed is not less than the threshold speed.);
In response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, execute the follow-up traveling control… (Hillenbrand: [0044]).
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than the threshold distance, end the follow-up traveling control (Hillenbrand: [0027] and [0044]).
Hillenbrand fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance; and… executing a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oka teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance… (Oka: [0033] and [0052] Note that the vehicle passing the portion of traffic congestion is equivalent to determining there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle. Also, note that Oka determines the probability a vehicle cuts in front of the own vehicle from the lane with traffic congestion. This is equivalent to traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle because the traffic (cut-in vehicle) occurs ahead of the vehicle, even if it is in a different lane.);
And in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle is not greater than the threshold distance, execute a second follow-up traveling control, the second follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle (Oka: [0020], [0031], and [0052]).
Hillenbrand and Oka are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand to incorporate the teachings of Oka to execute follow-up traveling control in response to determining that is no traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle and execute the follow-up traveling control at a constant speed because it provides the benefit of automatically controlling the vehicle to avoid colliding with vehicles changing lanes in front of the vehicle. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers, vehicles, and surroundings.
Hillenbrand and Oka fail to explicitly teach the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Arai teaches in response to determining that there is not traffic congestion ahead of the own vehicle, executing a first follow-up traveling control, the first follow-up traveling control is control that causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance, and the target inter-vehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle (Arai: [0063] Note that Figs. 3-5 show the target inter-vehicle distance set increases as the speed of the own vehicle increases.).
Hillenbrand, Oka, and Arai are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of adaptive cruise control and traffic congestion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillenbrand and Oka to incorporate the teachings of Arai to set the target inter-vehicle distance based on the speed of the own vehicle because it provides the benefit of preventing excessive deceleration and increases the comfort and safety of the passengers of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
12. First, the Applicant has alleged "Hillenbrand in view of Oka fails to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claims" and "Hillenbrand fails to teach that this follow-up control causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle, as recited in the amended independent claims."
The Examiner agrees that Hillenbrand fails to explicitly teach the follow-up control causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding while maintaining a constant speed of the own vehicle. However, Oka has been applied to teach this limitation in at least [0051] and [0052]. Oka teaches that it is determined whether or not the traffic congestion occurs, and when the traffic congestion does occur, it proceeds to step S3. In step S3, the vehicle is controlled to reduce a speed to travel at a constant speed lower than the speed of the vehicle traveling in front of the own vehicle. This is equivalent to executing a second follow-up control in response to determining the inter-vehicle distance is not greater than a distance threshold.
13. Second, the Applicant has alleged "Oka fails to teach that this follow- up traveling control causes the own vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle such that an inter- vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle becomes a target inter-vehicle distance, and the target-intervehicle distance is a value set based on the speed of the own vehicle, as recited in the amended independent claims."
This argument is moot be Arai has been applied to teach to control the vehicle based on an inter-vehicle distance that is determined based on the speed of the own vehicle in at least [0063] and Figs. 3-5. Arai teaches that in the adaptive cruise control region, the inter-vehicle distance increases at a certain rate compared to the speed increases of the own vehicle.
14. Hillenbrand (WO 2013060530 A1), in view of Oka (US 20060047409 A1), and in further view of Arai (US 20060100769 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
15. Claims 1-4 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kato (US 20210101600 A1)
Yang (US 20210155235 A1)
17. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663