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 .
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 12/15/2025, in which claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently pending and addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-11 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.
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.
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 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0340166 A1 (hereinafter Kume), in view of Sato, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0255012 A1, and further in view of Li et al., U.S. Patent No. 12097884 B2 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Kume discloses a vehicle control device (Kume Fig. 1) comprising:
a storage device storing a program (see at least Kume [0105]: “The storage unit 13 stores various programs (such as a presentation control program) to be executed by the processing unit 11.”);
and a hardware processor configured to execute the program to (see at least Kume [0105]: “The processing unit 11 is hardware for arithmetic processing coupled with the RAM 12.”):
recognize a surrounding situation of a vehicle traveling in a travel lane (see at least Kume [0095]: “The environment recognition unit 61 recognizes the travel environment of the vehicle A based on locator information and map data acquired from the locator 35, detection information acquired from the periphery monitoring sensor 30, information on other vehicles acquired from the V2X communication device 39, and the like.”; Fig. 4 shows vehicle A traveling in a travel lane),
control steering, acceleration, and deceleration of the vehicle independently of an operation of a driver of the vehicle (see at least Kume [0097]: “For example, the behavior determination unit 62 can autonomously perform a lane change (hereinafter, autonomous LC) toward a lane that is not outside the limited domain as an avoidance behavior to avoid the outside of the limited domain. The operation execution unit 63 executes acceleration/deceleration control, steering control, and the like of the vehicle A in accordance with the scheduled travel line generated by the behavior determination unit 62 in cooperation with the travel control ECU 40.”),
decide on a driving mode of the vehicle as one of a plurality of driving modes including a first driving mode and a second driving mode (see at least Kume [0245]: “When determining that the merging vehicle Ac that is merging is the subject vehicle driving vehicle (S278: YES) during performance of the eyes-off travel (S275), the autonomous driving ECU 50b determines transition to the hands-off travel in which the driver is not responsible for the steering operation (S280). Note that in a case where the merging vehicle Ac is the subject vehicle driving vehicle, continuation of the eyes-off travel may be determined. Furthermore, when having failed to determine that the merging vehicle Ac is an autonomous driving vehicle (S278: NO), the autonomous driving ECU 50b determines transition to the hands-on travel in which the driver is responsible for the steering operation (S279).”),
the second driving mode being a driving mode having a lighter task imposed on the driver than the first driving mode, the lighter task being a task requiring less manual operation and having more automation (see at least Kume [0092]: “At the autonomous driving level 2, autonomous travel requiring the driver to hold the steering wheel is referred to as “hands-on travel” (In FIG. 4, described as H-on). On the other hand, autonomous travel not requiring the driver to hold the steering wheel is referred to as “hands-off travel” (In FIG. 4, described as H-off).”) ,
control at least one of the plurality of driving modes including at least the second driving mode (see at least Kume [0092]: “In the autonomous driving functions of the autonomous driving levels 2 and 3 implemented by the autonomous driving system 50, the sustained driving control of the vehicle is performed by the system.”),
change the driving mode of the vehicle to a driving mode having a heavier task when a task related to the decided driving mode is not executed by the driver, the heavier task being a task requiring more manual operation and has less automation (see at least Kume [0117]: “When determining that the driver has selected not to perform the autonomous LC (S62: NO), the autonomous driving ECU 50b transitions to a state of waiting for a lane change (hereinafter, manual LC) to the passing lane PL by the driver (S69).”),
recognize an interrupting vehicle that is a vehicle cutting in front of the vehicle on the travel lane from a merging lane, the merging lane being a lane merging into the travel lane (see at least Kume [0255]: “Specifically, the environment recognition unit 61 grasps, as the merging vehicle Ac, another vehicle that cuts in from the merging lane ML to the travel lane DL.”; [0257]: “When grasping the presence of the merging section CfS or when detecting the merging vehicle Ac trying to cut in to front of the vehicle A, the environment recognition unit 61 determines that it is an interruption prediction scene (S301).”; Kume Fig. 4 shows merging lane ML merges into the travel lane DL),
a first direction in which the travel lane extends is the same as a second direction in which the merging lane extends (see at least Kume [0115]: “When the vehicle A traveling in the travel lane DL approaches the merging section CfS, the autonomous driving ECU 50 b grasps the presence of the merging section CfS based on the map data and the like. Based on the grasping of the merging section CfS existing in the traveling direction (S60), the autonomous driving ECU 50 b starts the autonomy level control processing illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6. Based on FIGS. 5 and 6, details of the autonomy level control processing will be described below with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4.”; Kume Fig. 4 shows the travel lane extending in the same direction as the merging lane),
and restrict implementation of the second driving mode when the interrupting vehicle is recognized and a first condition is satisfied (see at least Kume [0114]: “On the other hand, the merging section CfS is locally outside the limited domain, and other vehicles are assumed to merge from the merging lane ML to the travel lane DL, so that traveling by the autonomous driving operation is restricted.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a condition includes a merging section being outside the domain).
Kume fails to expressly disclose the first condition is an elapsed period of time after deceleration control is greater than or equal to a reference time. However, Sato teaches
and restrict implementation of the second driving mode when the interrupting vehicle is recognized (see at least Sato [0007]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 5, if ACCS system limit is reached due to cutting-in of a vehicle 4 that was driving in a neighboring lane 53 during the operation of the partially automated in-lane driving function of a vehicle 1 driving in a lane 52, the driver is notified of the ACC function stop and the steering and braking/driving takeover request”
and a first condition is satisfied, the first condition being that an elapsed period of time after a start of deceleration control for allowing the interrupting vehicle to move in front of the vehicle on the travel lane is greater than or equal to a first reference period of time (see at least Sato [0059]: “During the operation of the partially automated in-lane driving system (PADS), if the ACCS system limit is reached caused by sudden deceleration of a preceding vehicle, cutting-in of a vehicle driving in a neighboring lane, driving path curvature with respect to vehicle speed reaching the control limit value, activation of the ESP on a slippery road surface, or the like, the ACC function is stopped at the same time as the system limit, and the LKAS shifts to a fallback control mode. At the time, the driver is notified of ACC function stop, LKAS function stop advance notice, and an operation takeover request (takeover request), and LKA fallback control is started after the elapse of a prescribed waiting time (for example, four seconds).”; Sato teaches an elapsed period of time after a start of the deceleration control because the LKA fallback control where the driver takes control is started after a prescribed waiting time has elapsed following deceleration of the vehicle)
and decelerate the vehicle at the calculated deceleration (see at least Sato [0044]: “In addition, an engine controller 32 that has received an acceleration/deceleration command from the ACC controller 14 controls an actuator output (degree of throttle opening) to give the engine 42 a torque command and controls driving force to adjust the vehicle speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Kume with the first condition taught by Sato with reasonable expectation of success. Sato is directed towards the related field of an override function in a driving control apparatus. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume with Sato to improve driving operation takeover (see at least Sato [0020]: “According to the driving control apparatus for the vehicle according to the present invention, because the override threshold value serving as the determination criterion of the operation intervention at the time of system limit of the ACC function is altered to a value greater than during normal operation when the ACC function is within the system limit, if a driver who is overwhelmed by ACC function stop, LKA function stop advance notice, and operation takeover notice performs excessive operation intervention, override can be avoided, which enables shift to fallback control of the LKA function, can prevent lane departure, induction of deceleration or lane change of other vehicles, meandering of the vehicle, and the like due to excessive operation intervention, and is advantageous in smooth operation takeover.”).
Kume in view of Sato fails to expressly disclose an interrupting section including an end point between the merging lane and traveling lane and performing deceleration control based on inter-vehicle distance at the end point of the interrupting section. However, Li teaches
the merging lane including an interrupting section where the interrupting vehicle cuts into a lane in which the vehicle is traveling, the interrupting section including an end point located between the merging lane and the traveling lane (see at least Li Col. 14, lines 19-23: “The first adjustment area 106A is located between the overtaking lane change test area 101A and the occupancy lane change test area 102A, wherein the second adjustment area 107A is located between the pull-over parking test area 103A and the lane reduction lane change test area 104A.”; Li Fig. 11D shows the first adjustment area 160A (i.e., the interrupting section) ends between the merging lane and the traveling lane),
perform the deceleration control so as to calculate deceleration required for the inter-vehicle distance between the interrupting vehicle and the vehicle at the end point of the interrupting section to be greater than or equal to a predetermined distance (see at least Li Col. 19, lines 30-36: “The reference vehicle 30A and the to-be-tested vehicle 100A successively leave the first adjustment area 106A at a speed of v3. According to the preferred embodiment of the present invention, the reference vehicle 30A and the to-be-tested vehicle 100A keep a distance of 3 meters from each other when leaving the first adjustment area 106A.”; Col. 18, lines 7-14: “The qualification criteria of the lane reduction lane change test are: the direction and duration of the turn-light of the to-be-tested vehicle 100A are correct, the lane change is completed whether by means of deceleration or acceleration, no collision with the reference vehicle 30A or affecting the normal driving thereof, and the operation is completed before the lane reduction test end line 170A.”; Li Fig. 11D shows the first adjustment area is located between the merging lane and traveling lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device taught by Kume in view of Sato with Li with reasonable expectation of success. Li is directed towards the related field of lane change monitoring for autonomous vehicles. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume in view of Sato with Li to improve lane change safety (see at least Li Col. 2, line 64-Col. 3, line 3: “Contrasting to the theoretical data of computer simulation traffic operation software, the system is closer to the real driving environment, so that the test results thereof can more accurately represent the performance of the to-be-tested vehicle, and the tests are safer with respect the practices on actual roads.”).
Regarding claim 2, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume further teaches
wherein the second driving mode is a driving mode in which a task of an operator gripping a steering wheel for receiving a steering operation is not imposed on the driver (see at least Kume [0092]: “On the other hand, autonomous travel not requiring the driver to hold the steering wheel is referred to as “hands-off travel” (In FIG. 4, described as H-off).”),
and wherein the first driving mode is a driving mode in which a driving operation of the driver is necessary in relation to at least one of the steering of the vehicle and the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle (see at least Kume [0245]: “Furthermore, when having failed to determine that the merging vehicle Ac is an autonomous driving vehicle (S278: NO), the autonomous driving ECU 50b determines transition to the hands-on travel in which the driver is responsible for the steering operation (S279).”; Kume discloses a driving operation of the driver is necessary in relation to at least steering of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume further teaches
wherein the second driving mode is a driving mode in which a task of an operator gripping a steering wheel for receiving a steering operation is not imposed on the driver (see at least Kume [0092]: “On the other hand, autonomous travel not requiring the driver to hold the steering wheel is referred to as “hands-off travel” (In FIG. 4, described as H-off).”),
and wherein the first driving mode is a driving mode in which at least the task of gripping the operator for receiving the steering operation of the driver is imposed on the driver (see at least Kume [0245]: “Furthermore, when having failed to determine that the merging vehicle Ac is an autonomous driving vehicle (S278: NO), the autonomous driving ECU 50b determines transition to the hands-on travel in which the driver is responsible for the steering operation (S279).”).
Regarding claim 4, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Sato further teaches
wherein the first condition is that a magnitude of deceleration based on the deceleration control for allowing the interrupting vehicle to move in front of the vehicle on the travel path is greater than or equal to reference deceleration (see at least Sato [0059]: “During the operation of the partially automated in-lane driving system (PADS), if the ACCS system limit is reached caused by sudden deceleration of a preceding vehicle, cutting-in of a vehicle driving in a neighboring lane, driving path curvature with respect to vehicle speed reaching the control limit value, activation of the ESP on a slippery road surface, or the like, the ACC function is stopped at the same time as the system limit, and the LKAS shifts to a fallback control mode. At the time, the driver is notified of ACC function stop, LKAS function stop advance notice, and an operation takeover request (takeover request), and LKA fallback control is started after the elapse of a prescribed waiting time (for example, four seconds).”; Sato teaches a magnitude of acceleration is greater than or equal to reference deceleration because the sudden deceleration reaches the limits of the ACC system).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a method for the vehicle control device of claim 1. Kume in view of Sato and Li also disclose the method of the vehicle control device performed by a computer (Kume [0088]) as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a medium embodying the vehicle control device of claim 1. Kume in view of Sato and Li also disclose a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform the functions of claim 1 as explained above (Kume [0105]). Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Sato and Li, and further in view of Kitajima et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0194372 A1 (hereinafter Kitajima).
Regarding claim 5, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume in view of Sato and Li fail to expressly disclose the first condition is a degree of proximity between the vehicle and interrupting vehicle is higher than a reference degree at an end point of a section where the interrupting vehicle can cut into the travel path along which the vehicle is traveling. However, Kitajima teaches
wherein the first condition is that a degree of proximity between the vehicle and the interrupting vehicle is higher than a first reference degree at an end point of a section where the interrupting vehicle can cut into the travel path along which the vehicle is traveling (see at least Kitajima [0071]: “Controller 16 determines whether distance D between the predicted position of host vehicle 4 at the predicted merging time and the predicted position (merging point 28) of merging vehicle 24 at the predicted merging time (that is, inter-vehicle distance D between host vehicle 4 and merging vehicle 24 at the predicted merging time) is larger than a predetermined threshold value (S204).”; proximity between vehicles is high when the distance between the vehicles is low, which corresponds to “NO” in step S204 as shown in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device taught by Kume in view of Sato and Li with Kitajima with reasonable expectation of success. Kitajima is directed towards the related field of controlling an adaptive cruise control system based on detection of a merging vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume in view of Sato and Li with Kitajima to secure a sufficient inter-vehicle distance and allow the vehicle to safely merge (see at least Kitajima [0077]: “Accordingly, it is possible to secure a sufficient inter-vehicle distance between host vehicle 4 and merging vehicle 24 while host vehicle 4 is traveling in the traveling backward direction of merging vehicle 24 at the predicted merging time. As a result, merging vehicle 24 can safely merge into traveling lane 18.”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Sato and Li, and further in view of Oh, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0351906 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume in view of Sato and Li fail to expressly disclose an inter-vehicle distance greater than or equal to a first inter-vehicle distance has continued for at least a second reference period of time. However, Oh teaches
wherein the first condition is that speeds of the vehicle and the interrupting vehicle are less than or equal to a first reference speed (see at least Oh [0136]: “The apparatus 200 may control the host vehicle 110 to decelerate such that the inter-vehicle distance increases to the second inter-vehicle distance.”; [0092]: “As another example, the entering target determination module 251 may calculate the transverse speed and the transverse travel distance of the forward target 111, and may determine whether the target is a second target 111b by determining whether the transverse speed and the transverse travel distance correspond to predetermined conditions. Particularly, the entering target determination module 251 may calculate the transverse speed and the transverse travel distance of a target, the target driving on the road 120b adjacent to the driving road 120a of the host vehicle 110, from among one or more forward targets 111. The entering target determination module 251 may determine a target of which the calculated transverse speed and the transverse travel distance satisfy a predetermined cut-in condition as an entering target.”)
and a state in which an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and a preceding vehicle located in front of the vehicle on the travel path is greater than or equal to a first inter-vehicle distance has continued for a second reference period of time or longer (see at least Oh [0073]: “And, if the host vehicle has the possibility of collision with the second target 111b, the controller 250 may maintain the first target 111a as an object from which the host vehicle is to maintain an inter-vehicle distance, and the controller 250 may control the host vehicle to drive while maintaining a second inter-vehicle distance, which is farther than the first inter-vehicle distance.”; [0096]: “In this instance, the entering target avoidance module 253 may continuously maintain the first target 111 a as an object from which the host vehicle 110 is to maintain an inter-vehicle distance, and may control the host vehicle 110 to be more distant than a predetermined inter-vehicle distance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Kume in view of Sato and Li with the condition taught by Oh with reasonable expectation of success. Oh is directed towards the related field of controlling an inter-vehicle distance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume in view of Sato and Li with Oh to prevent collisions (see at least Oh [0010]: “Also, the present disclosure is to provide an apparatus and a method for controlling an inter-vehicle distance, which may preemptively prevent a collision that may occur while a vehicle drives on a road.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume in view of Sato and Li fail to expressly disclose the speed of the vehicle decreased to a second reference speed after a start of the deceleration control for allowing the interrupting vehicle to move in front of the vehicle. However, Oh teaches
wherein the first condition is that the speed of the vehicle is decreased to a second reference speed or higher after a start of the deceleration control for allowing the interrupting vehicle to move in front of the vehicle on the travel path (see at least Oh [0136]: “If the host vehicle 110 has the possibility of collision, the apparatus 200 maintains the first target 111a as an object from which the host vehicle 110 is to maintain an inter-vehicle distance, and the apparatus 200 changes the first inter-vehicle distance to a second inter-vehicle distance in operation S440. The apparatus 200 may control the host vehicle 110 to decelerate such that the inter-vehicle distance increases to the second inter-vehicle distance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Kume in view of Sato and Li with the condition taught by Oh with reasonable expectation of success. Oh is directed towards the related field of controlling an inter-vehicle distance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume in view of Sato and Li with Oh to prevent collisions (see at least Oh [0010]: “Also, the present disclosure is to provide an apparatus and a method for controlling an inter-vehicle distance, which may preemptively prevent a collision that may occur while a vehicle drives on a road.”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Sato and Li, and further in view of Okuyama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0283027 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Kume in view of Sato and Li teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Kume in view of Sato and Li fail to expressly disclose another vehicle behind the interrupting vehicle with an inter-vehicle distance less than a reference distance. However, Okuyama teaches
wherein the first condition is that there is another vehicle which is behind the interrupting vehicle and whose inter-vehicle distance from the interrupting vehicle is less than a second reference inter-vehicle distance (see at least Okuyama [0085]: “For example, in the example of the merging zone 63 illustrated in FIG. 4A, when the host vehicle 60 has reached a point A located at a first predetermined distance D1 or more before the starting point 80 of the merging zone 63, the presence or absence of the following vehicle 83 is confirmed.”; Okuyama [0088]: “The predetermined range for determining the presence or absence of the following vehicle 83 may be, for example, a range in which an inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle 60 and the following vehicle 83 is below a predetermined distance.”; the host vehicle taught by Okuyama is an interrupting vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Kume in view of Sato and Li with the condition taught by Okuyama with reasonable expectation of success. Okuyama is directed towards the related field of driving assistance for high difficulty points. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kume in view of Sato and Li with Okuyama to reduce driver discomfort (see at least Okuyama [0005]: “It is an object of the present invention to reduce discomfort to a driver due to approach of a following vehicle on a high difficulty point where autonomous driving is difficult.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Terazawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0256992 A1, directed towards a notice area and a preparation distance for a merging lane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662