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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 5, 12, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ito et al. (20230234587; hereinafter Ito, already of record) fails to teach determining the headway distance then applying energy saving maneuver if the headway distance if greater than the current distance. Additionally, the claims have been amended to recite limitations regarding elevation changes. The newly amended limitations have not been addressed in the prior Office Action of record and will be addressed in the detailed action below.
Additionally, Ito does disclose of determining the headway distance and applying an energy saving maneuver based on the headway distance as shown in paragraphs87 and 107.
“the inter-vehicle distance D is a distance between the own vehicle 100 and the preceding vehicle 200F and is acquired, based on surrounding detection information” ¶ 87,
“the ordinary assistance control may be a control to autonomously accelerate and decelerate the own vehicle 100 so as to maintain the inter-vehicle distance D within a predetermined range, i.e., a first predetermined distance range. The first predetermined distance range is a range which has an upper limit value greater than the set inter-vehicle distance Dset by a predetermined value” ¶ 107
Wherein it can be seen that Ito detects the headway (inter-vehicle) distance and applies the energy saving maneuver therefrom.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (20230234587; hereinafter Ito, already of record) in view of Dickson et al. (20230150502; hereinafter Dickson).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches a vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus for controlling a longitudinal motion of a first vehicle (Ito: Abstract), comprising:
a first sensor configured to sense a longitudinal motion of a second vehicle which precedes the first vehicle (Ito: “The image sensors 62 take the images of the views around the own vehicle 100 and send information on the taken images to the ECU 90” ¶ 100);
a second sensor configured to detect real-time (Ito: “The surrounding information detection apparatus 60 is an apparatus which detects information on surroundings of the own vehicle 100. In this embodiment, the surrounding information detection apparatus 60 includes radio wave sensors 61 and image sensors 62” ¶ 96) elevation changes of a roadway (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Dickson); and
a controller having at least one control module in communication with the sensors, the at least one control module configured to (Ito: “The ECU 90 acquires the inter-vehicle distance D between the preceding vehicle 200F and the own vehicle 100 and a preceding vehicle moving speed V2, i.e., a moving speed of the preceding vehicle 200F, based on the surrounding detection information” ¶ 101):
determine a longitudinal motion characteristic of the first vehicle (Ito: “the own vehicle 100 is installed with an accelerator pedal 41, an accelerator pedal operation amount sensor 42, a brake pedal 43, a brake pedal operation amount sensor 44, a steering wheel 45, a steering angle sensor 46, a steering torque sensor 47, a vehicle moving speed detection apparatus 48, a moving assistance operator 51, an efficiency prioritized moving operator 52, a surrounding information detection apparatus 60, and a transmitting-and-receiving device 70” ¶ 65);
determine a longitudinal motion characteristic of the second vehicle (Ito: “The ECU 90 acquires the inter-vehicle distance D between the preceding vehicle 200F and the own vehicle 100 and a preceding vehicle moving speed V2, i.e., a moving speed of the preceding vehicle 200F, based on the surrounding detection information” ¶ 101);
determine a headway distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based upon the longitudinal motion characteristic of the first vehicle, the longitudinal motion characteristic of the second vehicle, and at least one vehicle characteristic of the first vehicle (Ito: “The vehicle moving speed detection apparatus 48 is a sensor which detects the moving speed of the own vehicle 100” ¶ 77, “The ECU 90 acquires the inter-vehicle distance D between the preceding vehicle 200F and the own vehicle 100 and a preceding vehicle moving speed V2, i.e., a moving speed of the preceding vehicle 200F, based on the surrounding detection information” ¶ 101) and the detected elevation changes (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Dickson);
apply an energy saving maneuver to the first vehicle (Ito: “The vehicle driving assistance apparatus 10 is configured to execute the moving assistance control” ¶ 105) based upon the determined headway distance being greater than a current distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle (Ito: “the inter-vehicle distance D is a distance between the own vehicle 100 and the preceding vehicle 200F and is acquired, based on surrounding detection information” ¶ 87, “the ordinary assistance control may be a control to autonomously accelerate and decelerate the own vehicle 100 so as to maintain the inter-vehicle distance D within a predetermined range, i.e., a first predetermined distance range. The first predetermined distance range is a range which has an upper limit value greater than the set inter-vehicle distance Dset by a predetermined value” ¶ 107) and increase energy efficiency of the first vehicle (Ito: “The efficiency prioritized assistance control is a control to autonomously accelerate the own vehicle 100 by an optimum acceleration control when the own vehicle 100 is required to be accelerated and autonomously decelerate the own vehicle 100 by a coasting control when the own vehicle 100 is required to be decelerated ” ¶ 109, “the optimum acceleration control and the coasting control, respectively so as to move the own vehicle 100, following the preceding vehicle 200F which is a synchronous target vehicle 200E” ¶ 120, see also ¶ 200).
While Ito remains silent regarding elevation changes of a roadway ... and the detected elevation changes, in a similar field of endeavor, Dickson teaches the claim limitation of elevation changes of a roadway (Dickson: “determine the current load (e.g., the power consumed for propelling the vehicle 100, Ppropulsion) for the vehicle 100 based on the current state of the vehicle 100 (e.g., current speed, current acceleration, weight of the vehicle 100, current road grade etc.)” ¶ 93). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the sensor system of Ito so that it also includes the element of elevation changes, as taught by Dickson, in order to improve adaptive cruise control (Dickson: ¶ 53, 72, 92).
Regarding claim 2, Ito in view of Dickson teaches the vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the longitudinal motion characteristic of the first vehicle is at least one of longitudinal displacement, longitudinal velocity (Ito: “The vehicle moving speed detection apparatus 48 is a sensor which detects the moving speed of the own vehicle 100” ¶ 77), longitudinal acceleration, and longitudinal jerk; and
the longitudinal motion characteristic of the second vehicle is at least one of longitudinal displacement, longitudinal velocity (Ito: “The ECU 90 acquires ... a preceding vehicle moving speed V2, i.e., a moving speed of the preceding vehicle 200F”), longitudinal acceleration, and longitudinal jerk.
Regarding claim 3, Ito in view of Dickson teaches the vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus of claim 2, wherein:
the energy saving maneuver further comprises a coasting maneuver (Ito: “The efficiency prioritized assistance control is a control to autonomously accelerate the own vehicle 100 by an optimum acceleration control when the own vehicle 100 is required to be accelerated and autonomously decelerate the own vehicle 100 by a coasting control when the own vehicle 100 is required to be decelerated” ¶ 109);
further wherein the coasting maneuver involves one of a reduction of fuel or energy being supplied to the engine or a disengagement of power to one or more components of the vehicle (Ito: “The coasting control is a control to coast the own vehicle 100 by causing the driving apparatus 21 to output the driving torque which does not accelerate nor decelerate the own vehicle 100. In this embodiment, the coasting control is a control to coast the own vehicle 100 by stopping operating the first power source 211 (e.g., the internal combustion engine)” ¶ 118).
Regarding claim 4, Ito in view of Dickson teaches the vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus of claim 3, wherein:
the at least one control module includes an eco-coasting control module having an eco-coasting algorithm for determining the headway distance (Ito: “the coasting control, respectively so as to follow the synchronous target vehicle 200E corresponding to the preceding vehicle 200F” ¶ 176, see also ¶ 186).
Regarding claim 6, Ito in view of Dickson teaches the vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus of claim 4, wherein:
the at least one control module further includes at least one of an Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) module and a Predictive Cruise Control (PCC) module (Ito: “a synchronous operation state switching following control (or a synchronous switching following control or a third following control), a non-synchronous operation state switching following control (or a non-synchronous switching following control or a second following control)” ¶ 109), and further if the headway distance is less than the current distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, the controller is configured to apply one of the ACC module and the PCC module (Ito: “that the inter-vehicle distance D excessively decreases ... the own vehicle 100 is preferably moved by the non-synchronous switching following control such that the inter-vehicle distance D does not become smaller than a minimum permitted distance Dmin” ¶ 204).
Regarding claim 8, Ito teaches a vehicle having a longitudinal motion control apparatus for controlling a longitudinal motion of the vehicle (Ito: “The vehicle driving assistance apparatus 10 is installed on an own vehicle 100” ¶ 52), comprising:
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 9-11 and 13-14, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 2-4 and 6-7, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-7, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the following allowable subject matter (or limitations analogous to):
Regarding claim 7, Ito in view of Dickson teaches the vehicle longitudinal motion control apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the at least one control module determines the headway distance by way of the following function (Ito: “the inter-vehicle distance D is maintained within the permitted distance range RDpmt” ¶ 208):
h
e
c
o
v
0
,
v
f
,
v
1
,
a
,
c
=
V
-
1
v
f
+
s
f
v
0
,
v
f
,
a
,
c
-
v
1
t
f
(
v
0
,
v
f
,
a
,
c
)
wherein
V
-
1
is an inverse of a range policy function (Ito: “the vehicle driving assistance apparatus 10 sets the maximum permitted distance Dmax and the minimum permitted distance Dmin and sets a range between the maximum permitted distance Dmax and the minimum permitted distance Dmin as a permitted distance range RDpmt” ¶ 205),
v
0
is an initial velocity of the first vehicle at a first time (Ito: “an acceleration start speed Vacc ... a coasting start speed Vcst” ¶ 208),
v
1
is a subsequent velocity of the first vehicle at a second time (Ito: “The acceleration start speed Vacc, the acceleration start distance Dacc, the coasting start speed Vcst, and the coasting start distance Dcst are ones for minimizing the consumed energy amount of the driving apparatus 21 when moving the own vehicle 100 ... following the preceding vehicle 200F moving at the predicted preceding vehicle moving speed V2pre predicted described above” ¶ 208),
v
f
is the velocity of the second vehicle (Ito: “the preceding vehicle 200F moving at the predicted preceding vehicle moving speed V2pre” ¶ 200),
s
f
is a location of the second vehicle (Ito: “following the preceding vehicle 200F by the non-synchronous switching following control, (ii) acquires the consumed energy amount by applying the acquired inter-vehicle distance D” ¶ 209),
t
f
is a coasting time (Ito: “the inter-vehicle distance D which satisfies a relationship between the current own vehicle moving speed V1, the predetermined predicted reaching time” ¶ 89),
a
is a function of a weight of the first vehicle (Ito: “The coasting control is a control to coast the own vehicle 100 ... the own vehicle 100 is decelerated mainly by its moving resistance” ¶ 118), and
c
is a function of an air drag of the first vehicle (Ito: “the air resistance to the own vehicle 100 by moving the own vehicle 100, following the preceding vehicle 200F” ¶ 199).
Wherein Ito in view of Dickson can be seen disclosing the resultant and variables outlined in the equation above; however, Ito in view of Dickson fail to disclose utilizing the specific equation
h
e
c
o
v
0
,
v
f
,
v
1
,
a
,
c
=
V
-
1
v
f
+
s
f
v
0
,
v
f
,
a
,
c
-
v
1
t
f
(
v
0
,
v
f
,
a
,
c
)
to achieve said resultant. The closest equation disclosed by Ito is in paragraph 209; however, the equation Ito discloses utilizes these variables to calculate energies which are then inputted into an equation to find the resultant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (20220063635) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of autonomous cruise control.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663