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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-087095, filed on 05/27/2022.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 10/17/2025.
Claims 1, 3-8 are pending and are examined below.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 01/16/2026.
This amendment has overcome the claim objection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2023, 06/20/2023, 12/04/2024 and 09/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takami (US 20110251771 A1) in view of Shiratori (JP 2005230381 A).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7,
Takami discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to (Takami, paragraph [0025] “The controller 50 includes a CPU and CPU peripheral components such as a ROM and a RAM, and controls the vehicular drive control device as a whole”)
cause a reaction force add section to add a reaction force being a constant value to an accelerator pedal of a driver's vehicle in a case in which a vehicle ahead of a driver's vehicle in a longitudinal direction is detected by a first sensor and a depression to an accelerator pedal of the driver's vehicle in an on state indicating an intention to accelerate the driver’s vehicle is detected by a second sensor,( Takami, see at least Fig.6 and para [0022] “An accelerator pedal 40 is manipulated by the driver, and the displacement thereof is output to the controller 50. An accelerator manipulation reaction force operation unit 55 of the controller 50 outputs an accelerator manipulation reaction force instruction value to a manipulation reaction force generation unit 45 of the accelerator pedal 40 to generate a reaction force to push the accelerator pedal up”, paragraphs [0020] “A sensor 20 is to measure a following distance between a vehicle …and a leading vehicle, and a laser radar device or a millimeter-wave radar device, for example, is used for this purpose. A detected following distance is output to a controller 50”, and para[22], “An accelerator pedal 40 is manipulated by the driver, and the displacement thereof is output to the controller 50”)Examiner note: Takami depicts in Fig. 6 that a reaction force being a constant value (indicated by a red solid line arrow ) is applied to an accelerator pedal. Takami also teaches a first sensor is a laser radar device or a millimeter-wave radar device to detect a leading vehicle ahead of a driver's vehicle in a longitudinal direction. A second sensor is an accelerator pedal while it is pressed by the driver, the displacement thereof is output signal indicating an intention to accelerate the driver’s vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
after adding the reaction force, cause the reaction force add section to cancel or reduce the reaction force… ( Takami, see at least Fig.6 that a reaction force being reduced to zero (indicated by a black dash line arrow) after adding the reaction force (red solid line arrow) a stepwise manner.
Inter-vehicle distance in the longitudinal direction between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead remains below a predetermined threshold for a fixed period of time or greater ( Takami, see at least paragraphs [0067], “the following distance falls below a predetermined distance D”, and Fig. 6 depicts (indicated by a yellow arrow) the distance between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead remains below a predetermined distance D for an extend time period)
PNG
media_image2.png
569
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the reaction force is reduced over time ( Takami, see at least Fig.6 that a reaction force being reduced to zero over a pulse period. (black dash line arrow).
PNG
media_image1.png
692
1018
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takami does not explicitly teach, but Shiratori teaches,
in a case in which a difference between a maximum and minimum inter-vehicle distance in the longitudinal direction between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead remains below a predetermined threshold ( Shiratori, Fig. 11 and Claim 3, “the maximum and minimum values of the distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle”, and claim 4, “the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the distance is less than a predetermined value. ”)
while the difference remains below the predetermined threshold. ( Shiratori, claim 4, “the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the distance is less than a predetermined value. ”)
PNG
media_image3.png
489
631
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takami and include in a case in which a difference between a maximum and minimum distance between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead remains below a predetermined threshold by Shiratori, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the vehicle control device’s ability to maintain a following distance to a leading vehicle while also not restricting the driver’s accelerator pedal which would improve the safety of the driver.
Regarding claim 3,
Takami in view of Shiratori, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Takami discloses:
The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: determine a restriction value for the reaction force based on a continuous time period of traveling under the specific condition. (Takami, see at least paragraph [0030] “When the following distance falls below a predetermined distance while the driver presses the accelerator pedal 40 down, the accelerator manipulation reaction force operation unit 55 generates a reaction force to vibrate the accelerator pedal”, and paragraph [0044] “At Step S204, determination is made as to whether the elapsed time exceeds predetermined T seconds or not”). Examiner note: Takami teaches determine a restriction value for generating a reaction force to vibrate the accelerator pedal under the specific condition of when the following distance falls below a predetermined distance.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takami (US 20110251771 A1) in view of Shiratori (JP 2005230381 A), further in view of Maruyama (US 10059203 B2).
Regarding claim 4,
Takami in view of Shiratori, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Takami does not explicitly teach, but Maruyama teaches,
The vehicle control device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the reaction force restriction value so as to reduce over time in a stepwise manner the reaction force added to the accelerator pedal of the driver's vehicle by the reaction force add section as the continuous time period lengthens. (Maruyama, see at least Col. 8 line 67 to Col. 9 lines 1-4 “in step S43, the reaction force F gradually decreases along the reaction force increase amount variable characteristic Fja (see FIG. 6A) or the reaction force increase amount variable characteristic Fjb (see FIG. 6B)”).
Takami teaches a vehicle control device that uses a reaction force operation unit to generate a reaction force on the driver’s accelerator pedal and two different control modes, follow-up control and normal control to keep a following distance with a leading vehicle. While Maruyama teaches an acceleration pedal reaction force control device that can gradually decrease the reaction force applied to the accelerator pedal. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takami and include using the reaction force control unit that gradually decreases the reaction force applied to the accelerator pedal as taught by Maruyama, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the vehicle control device’s ability to maintain a following distance to a leading vehicle while also not restricting the drivers accelerator pedal which would improve the safety of the driver.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takami (US 20110251771 A1) in view of Shiratori (JP 2005230381 A), further in view of Hijikata (JP 2004331025 A).
Regarding claim 8,
Takami in view of Shiratori, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Takami does not explicitly teach, but Hijikata teaches,
The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a risk value based on information including a speed of the driver's vehicle, a relative speed between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle, a relative acceleration between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle, and an inter-vehicle distance between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead of the driver's vehicle, (Hijikata ,see at least paragraphs [0007] “The laser radar 10 measures the reflected wave of the infrared light pulse reflected by a plurality of reflectors (usually the rear end of the front vehicle) ahead of the host vehicle, and determines the distance from the arrival time of the reflected wave to the vehicle ahead. Detects inter-vehicle distance and relative speed. The detected inter-vehicle distance and relative speed are output to the controller 30”. [0008] “vehicle speed sensor 20 detects the vehicle speed of the host vehicle by measuring the number of rotations of the wheels and the number of rotations on the output side of the transmission, and outputs the detected host vehicle speed to the controller 30”. [0009] “The controller 30 detects an obstacle situation around the host vehicle based on signals input from the laser radar 10 and the vehicle speed sensor 20, and calculates the risk potential of the host vehicle with respect to the obstacle based on the detected obstacle situation”.)
and cause the reaction force add section to add the reaction such that the reaction force increase as the risk value gets higher. (Hijikata, see at least paragraph [0021] “an accelerator pedal reaction force control amount F (RP) is calculated based on the risk potential calculated in step S102. The reaction force control amount F (RP) increases as the risk potential RP increases as shown in FIG. 6”).
Takami teaches a vehicle control device that uses a reaction force operation unit to generate a reaction force on the driver’s accelerator pedal and two different control modes, follow-up control and normal control to keep a following distance with a leading vehicle. While Hijikata teaches vehicle operation assistance device that detects inter-vehicle distance, vehicle speed, and calculates risk potential and applies reaction force based on the calculated risk potential. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Takami and include using the risk potential calculating means as taught by Hijikata, with a reasonable expectation of success, because improve the driver’s ability to assess risk on the road which would improve safety for the driver and other vehicles on the road.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights