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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 15-18 have been added since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0304092 to Rebhan et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0263403 to Choi and U.S. Patent 9,272,711 to Sivaraman.
As per claim 1, Rebhan discloses a drive assist apparatus for a vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 37), the drive assist apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 15; it would be understood that at least one processor would be required in the driver assistance system to perform the steps outlined in the reference); and
one or more memories storing instructions causing the one or more processors to (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 16; it would be understood that a computer software program product is stored in memory):
recognize driving environment information on an outside of the vehicle, the outside including an area ahead of the vehicle and an area behind the vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 47);
set a target preceding vehicle distance to a preceding vehicle when the preceding vehicle is recognized based on the driving environment information (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 38 and 40); and
perform driving control maintaining a preceding vehicle distance from the vehicle to the preceding vehicle at the target preceding vehicle distance (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 38 and 40), wherein
the one or more processors are further caused to, when a driving path of the vehicle is congested, (i) set an extended target preceding vehicle distance by extending the target preceding vehicle distance by a set distance, and set a target following vehicle distance to a following vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20; “an increased traffic density…is associated to a respective gap adaption indicator indicating an extension of the preset gap”),
Rebhan discloses determining and achieving appropriate gap distances using controls such as an accelerator (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 45), but does not explicitly disclose calculate a target acceleration
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Choi (Choi; At least paragraph(s) 9). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Choi into the invention of Rebhan with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Maintaining the following distance by calculating a target acceleration allows controlling the acceleration to an appropriate amount, thus improving the user experience and improving the driving stability, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 2 of Choi. Further, use of a target speed or acceleration would be needed to change the position of the vehicle to match the target gap distance, and use of either one would be within the skill of one in the art.
Rebhan discloses sensing the entire environment and adjusting the gap based on “distance to successor of ego-vehicle”, but does not explicitly disclose based on a difference between a following vehicle distance from the vehicle to the following vehicle and the target following vehicle distance to maintain the following vehicle distance at the target following distance,
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Sivaraman (Sivaraman; At least column 5 line(s) 42-45). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Sivaraman into the invention of Rebhan with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining and controlling the gap distances based on the following vehicle ensures adequate spacing between all obstacles resulting in a safer operation. In both ACC systems of Rebhan and Sivaraman, if the gap is different than the target gap, the vehicle operates to make the gap equal to the target gap, i.e., the difference is zero.
(iii) determine whether to permit the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate based on a relative relationship between the preceding vehicle distance and the extended target preceding vehicle distance, wherein the determination prevents the vehicle from accelerating when the preceding vehicle distance is less than or equal to the extended target preceding vehicle distance and prevents the vehicle from decelerating when the preceding vehicle distance is greater than the extended target preceding vehicle distance, (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 38, 40, and 45; the vehicle maintains a target gap, therefore, if the vehicle is closer to the vehicle than the target gap, it would prevent accelerating, which would further reduce the gap and, likewise, the vehicle would not decelerate to increase the gap if the current gap is greater than the target gap),
(iv) perform acceleration control using the target acceleration when the target acceleration is a value on an acceleration side and the vehicle is permitted to accelerate (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 38, 40, and 45), and
(v) perform deceleration control using the target acceleration when the target acceleration is a value on a deceleration side and the vehicle is permitted to decelerate (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 38, 40, and 45).
As per claim 2, Rebhan discloses wherein the extended target preceding vehicle distance is set to a distance that can prevent another vehicle from cutting in in front of the vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 13 and 43).
As per claim 3, Rebhan discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to set a predetermined value as the target following vehicle distance, and correct the target following vehicle distance based on a relative relationship between the vehicle and the following vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20).
As per claim 4, Rebhan discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to set a predetermined value as the target following vehicle distance, and correct the target following vehicle distance based on a relative relationship between the vehicle and the following vehicle.
As per claim 5, Rebhan discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to reflect a relative speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle upon determining whether to permit the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20, 38, and 40).
As per claim 6, Rebhan discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to reflect a relative speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle upon determining whether to permit the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20, 38, and 40).
As per claim 7, Rebhan discloses a drive assist apparatus comprising circuitry configured to perform the steps of the driving assist apparatus of claim 1 (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 2). Therefore, claim 7 is rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
As per claims 8 and 9, Rebhan discloses wherein the one or more processors are further caused to determine whether to permit the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate maintaining the following vehicle distance based on a relative relationship between the preceding vehicle distance and the extended target preceding vehicle distance, the following vehicle distance, and a relative speed of the preceding vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20, 38, and 40).
As per claim 10, Rebhan discloses wherein the extended target preceding vehicle distance is set to a distance that can prevent another vehicle from cutting in in front of the vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 13 and 43).
As per claims 11 and 12, Rebhan discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to set a predetermined value as the target following vehicle distance, and correct the target following vehicle distance based on a relative relationship between the vehicle and the following vehicle (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20).
As per claims 13 and 14, Rebhan discloses whereing the circuitry is further configured to reflect a relative speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle upon determining whether to permit the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 20, 38, and 40).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebhan, in view of Choi and Sivaraman as applied to claims 1 and 15, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0050697 to Kuszmaul et al.
As per claims 15 and 16, Rebhan does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination, based on a relative speed between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle, permits the vehicle to accelerate even when the preceding vehicle distance is less than or equal to the extended target preceding vehicle distance and permits the vehicle to decelerate even when the preceding vehicle distance is greater than the extended target preceding vehicle distance.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kuszmaul (Kuszmaul; At least paragraph(s) 83 and figure 5B). As shown in figure 5B, the torque control line 320 (i.e., acceleration) can occur at distances less than the target gap and the brake control line 330 (i.e., deceleration) can occur at distances greater than the target gap. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kuszmaul into the invention of Rebhan with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Accelerating based on relative speed even if the distance is less than the target distance would reduce unnecessary braking since the preceding vehicle will quickly be beyond the target distance and decelerating based on relative speed even if the distance is greater than the target distance would reduce unnecessary acceleration since the distance will quickly be less than the target distance. Thus, fuel and brake wear will be reduced and costs will be reduced.
As per claims 17 and 18, Rebhan does not explicitly disclose wherein when the preceding vehicle distance is less than or equal to the extended target preceding vehicle distance, a region where acceleration is permitted becomes larger as the relative speed becomes greater, and when the preceding vehicle distance is greater than the extended target preceding vehicle distance, a region where deceleration is permitted becomes larger as the relative speed becomes greater on a negative side.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Kuszmaul (Kuszmaul; At least paragraph(s) 83 and figure 5B). As shown in figure 5B, the torque control line 320 (i.e., acceleration) occurs more at high relative speeds and the brake control line 330 (i.e., deceleration) occurs more at higher negative relative speeds. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Kuszmaul into the invention of Rebhan with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Accelerating based on relative speed even if the distance is less than the target distance would reduce unnecessary braking since the preceding vehicle will quickly be beyond the target distance and decelerating based on relative speed even if the distance is greater than the target distance would reduce unnecessary acceleration since the distance will quickly be less than the target distance. The greater the relative speed (positive or negative), the quicker the distance to the target distance will change. Thus, fuel and brake wear will be reduced and costs will be reduced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to claim element ii) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to Rebhan preventing acceleration/deceleration when the gap does not equal the target gap have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Rebhan discloses operating a vehicle to maintain a target gap, therefore, if the current gap were less than the target gap, the vehicle would increase the gap and prevent acceleration, which would further decrease the gap. Likewise, if the current gap were greater than the target gap, the vehicle would decrease the gap and prevent deceleration, which would further increase the gap.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/18/2025, with respect Choi have been fully considered by they are not persuasive. Rebhan discloses adjusting the gap using controls such as an accelerator (Rebhan; At least paragraph(s) 45). Adjusting a gap between vehicles requires either controlling speed or acceleration. Choi is used to show that calculating a target acceleration is known in the art and would be obvious to use in vehicle control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am 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, Erin Bishop can be reached on 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665