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 12/29/2025, in which claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the title. Accordingly, the objection to the title has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0072325 A1, in view of Watanabe et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0232970 A1 (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 1, Koike discloses a travel controller (Koike Fig. 1) comprising
a processor configured to (see at least Koike [0051]: “The travel ECU 36 executes the automatic driving control for driving the vehicle 10 to the target point Pgoal without requiring driving operations made by the driver, and for example, includes a central processing unit (CPU).”),
in a state in which autonomous driving in which acceleration and deceleration of a vehicle are autonomously controlled (see at least Koike [0067]: “In the automatic driving control according to the first embodiment, the automatic driving force control, the automatic braking force control, and the automatic turning control are used in combination.”)
and an operation by a driver of the vehicle for accelerating the vehicle and a grip by the driver on a steering wheel accepting operations by the driver for designating a steering direction and a steering amount of the vehicle are detected (see at least Koike [0105]: “In step S34, the ECU 36 acquires the driving operation information Io and the vehicle occupant state information Is. In this instance, in the driving operation information Io, there are included the operation amount θst of the steering wheel 94, the operation amount θap of the accelerator pedal 90, and the operation amount θbp of the brake pedal 92.”),
control an acceleration rate of the vehicle by accelerating the vehicle in accordance with the operation for accelerating the vehicle by limiting the acceleration rate of the vehicle to be less than or equal to an upper limit of the acceleration rate (see at least Koike [0069]: “Further, the ECU 36 sets an upper limit value αmax (hereinafter also referred to as a “longitudinal acceleration upper limit value αmax” or an “acceleration upper limit value αmax”) of the longitudinal acceleration α of the vehicle 10, and controls the travel driving force Fd so that the longitudinal acceleration α does not exceed the upper limit value αmax.”)
and initiating an increase in the upper limit of the acceleration rate from a time in which both of the operation for accelerating the vehicle and the grip by the driver on the steering wheel are detected (see at least Koike [0100]: “Alleviation of the longitudinal acceleration upper limit value αmax implies that the acceleration upper limit value αmax is increased in accordance with an additional operation of the accelerator pedal 90 made by the driver. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the alleviation of the acceleration upper limit value αmax is not started when the automatic lane change (ALC) of FIG. 4B is made, but rather starting thereof occurred in an ALC that took place before the ALC of FIG. 4B.”; [0096]: “Alleviation of the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax as referred to herein implies that the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax is increased in accordance with an additional operation of the steering wheel 94 made by the driver. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the alleviation of the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax is not started when the automatic lane change (ALC) of FIG. 3 is made, but rather starting thereof occurred in an ALC that took place before the ALC of FIG. 3.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation increasing the upper limit includes alleviating the upper limit, as evidenced by Koike [0107]),
Koike fails to expressly disclose the upper limit of acceleration rate linearly increases along an elapse of time. However, Watanabe teaches
wherein the upper limit of the acceleration rate linearly increases along an elapse of time starting from the time in which both of the operation for accelerating the vehicle and the grip by the driver of the steering wheel are detected (This limitation is taught through the combination of Koike and Watanabe. Koike discloses the upper limit of the acceleration rate increases starting from the time in which both the operation for accelerating the vehicle and the grip by the driver of the steering wheel are detected (Koike [0096], [0100], [0107]). Koike fails to expressly disclose the upper limit of the acceleration rate increases linearly. However, Watanabe teaches the upper limit of the acceleration rate linearly increases along an elapse of time (Watanabe [0063]: “After that, the limit correction block 32 outputs a command to the limit setting block 22, for gradual increase of the acceleration limit to a reference value that is the acceleration limit before being reduced. In this case, the increasing rate of the acceleration limit may be linear or non-linear.”). Therefore, the combination of Koike and Watanabe teach the entirety of this limitation.).
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 controller disclosed by Koike with the linear increase taught by Watanabe with reasonable expectation of success. Watanabe is directed towards the related field of controlling vehicle acceleration and deceleration. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Koike with Watanabe to improve driver comfort (see at least Watanabe [0010]: “An aspect of the present disclosure is to provide a technique for minimizing the uneasiness felt by the driver when the acceleration and deceleration control of the own vehicle is restored after being temporarily deactivated.”).
Regarding claim 2, Koike in view of Watanabe teach all elements of the travel controller according to claim 1 as explained above. Koike further discloses
wherein the processor is further configured to increase an amount of the increase in the upper limit of the acceleration rate along the elapse of time when an operation by the driver for changing lanes is detected compared to when the operation by the driver for changing lanes is not detected (see at least Koike [0100]: “Alleviation of the longitudinal acceleration upper limit value αmax implies that the acceleration upper limit value αmax is increased in accordance with an additional operation of the accelerator pedal 90 made by the driver. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the alleviation of the acceleration upper limit value αmax is not started when the automatic lane change (ALC) of FIG. 4B is made, but rather starting thereof occurred in an ALC that took place before the ALC of FIG. 4B.”; [0092]: “FIG. 3 is an explanatory diagram of a case in which there is, and a case in which there is not an alleviation of the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax, as well as a case in which an automatic lane change (ALC) is performed in each of such cases, respectively, according to the first embodiment.”).
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites a method for the travel controller of claim 1. Koike in view of Watanabe also teach a method for the travel controller of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites a medium embodying the travel controller of claim 1. Koike in view of Watanabe also teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer program for travel control stored therein and a computer mounted on a vehicle (Koike [0051], [0063]). Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view Watanabe, and further in view of Kim, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0063635 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Koike in view of Watanabe teach all elements of the travel controller according to claim 1 as explained above. Koike in view of Watanabe fail to expressly disclose decreasing the amount of increase of the upper limit of acceleration rate when a gaze direction of the driver is not oriented in a travel direction of the vehicle. However, Kim teaches
wherein the processor is further configured to decrease an amount of the increase in the upper limit of the acceleration rate along the elapse of time when a gaze direction of the driver is not oriented in a travel direction of the vehicle compared to when the gaze direction of the driver is oriented in the travel direction of the vehicle (see at least Kim [0123]: “According to an example, when the driving speed of the vehicle is adjusted, the message “The acceleration is limited because the driver does not keep his or her eyes on the road.” may be output as a voice or a video by means of a user interface 160 of FIG. 1.”; [0022]: “The headway distance controller may set an amount of acceleration of the vehicle when the driver does not keep his or her eyes on the road to be lower than an amount of acceleration of the vehicle when the driver keeps his or her eyes on the road.”).
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 controller disclosed by Koike in view of Watanabe with the acceleration rate decrease taught by Kim with reasonable expectation of success. Kim is directed towards the related field of a vehicle controller using advanced driver assistance systems. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Koike in view of Watanabe with Kim to reduce driver inconvenience and increase the time the driver has to respond to a situation when the driver takes their eyes off the road (see at least Kim [0006]-[0007]: “At this time, although the driver does not respond to it, a safety assist system, such as forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA), operates to prevent a head-on collision. However, there may still be a sense of fatigue/inconvenience of the driver according to sudden braking. Thus, there is a need for a method for suppressing the occurrence of a limit situation or increasing a time taken for the driver to respond to the limit situation, in the situation where the driver does not keep his or her eyes on the road.”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Watanabe, and further in view of Abe et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0034419 A1 (hereinafter Abe).
Regarding claim 4, Koike in view of Watanabe teach all elements of the travel controller according to claim 1 as explained above. Koike in view of Watanabe fail to expressly disclose accelerating the vehicle corresponding to a combined control value of a manual control value and autonomous control value. However, Abe teaches wherein the control of the acceleration rate of the vehicle comprises
limiting the acceleration rate corresponding to a combined control value calculated by combining a manual control value corresponding to the operation by the driver for accelerating the vehicle and a control value for accelerating the vehicle by the autonomous control at a ratio not more than the upper limit of the acceleration rate (see at least Abe [0109]: “Thereafter, the driving-condition setting unit 75 may set the control target values of the vehicle 1 on the basis of the first control target values, the second control target values, and the rate α (step S87). The control target values to be calculated may be expressed by the following expression. Control target values of vehicle 1=first control target values×α+second control target values×(1−α)”; Abe [0063]-[0064] teaches first control target values correspond to autonomous control, second control target values correspond to manual control, and control target values include the target acceleration rate; Abe [0083] teaches a maximum acceleration rate value is set to prevent sudden acceleration and sudden deceleration).
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 controller disclosed by Koike in view of Watanabe with the combined control value taught by Abe with reasonable expectation of success. Abe is directed towards the related field of a vehicle that is switchable between automatic driving and manual driving. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Koike in view of Watanabe with Abe to improve the transition from automatic driving to manual driving (see at least Abe [0019]-[0020]: “In such a case, depending on ability of the driver to adapt, the driver can make a mistake in a driving operation after the operation authority transfer has been performed, which can result in abrupt braking or abrupt turning of a steering wheel. It is desirable to provide a vehicle control apparatus that allows for safe operation authority transfer in accordance with ability of a driver to adapt to switching from automatic driving to manual driving.”).
Regarding claim 5, Koike in view of Watanabe and Abe teach all elements of the travel controller according to claim 4 as explained above. Abe further teaches
wherein the combined control value is calculated such that the ratio of the manual control value increases along the elapse of time (see at least Abe [0065]: “For example, in a period from the start of the operation authority transfer process to the elapse of the transition time, the driving-condition setting unit 75 may gradually decrease a rate at which the first control target values, set by the automatic driving, are to be reflected to the control target values of the vehicle 1 (100/100.fwdarw.0/100) while gradually increasing a rate at which the second control target values, set by the manual driving, are to be reflected to the control target values of the vehicle 1 (0/100.fwdarw.100/100), thereby executing the operation authority transfer.”; Abe [0064] teaches control target values include the target acceleration rate)
Koike further discloses
from the time in which the operation for accelerating the vehicle and the grip by the driver on the steering wheel are detected (see at least Koike [0100]: “Alleviation of the longitudinal acceleration upper limit value αmax implies that the acceleration upper limit value αmax is increased in accordance with an additional operation of the accelerator pedal 90 made by the driver. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the alleviation of the acceleration upper limit value αmax is not started when the automatic lane change (ALC) of FIG. 4B is made, but rather starting thereof occurred in an ALC that took place before the ALC of FIG. 4B.”; [0096]: “Alleviation of the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax as referred to herein implies that the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax is increased in accordance with an additional operation of the steering wheel 94 made by the driver. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the alleviation of the lateral acceleration upper limit value Glatmax is not started when the automatic lane change (ALC) of FIG. 3 is made, but rather starting thereof occurred in an ALC that took place before the ALC of FIG. 3.”).
Conclusion
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 at (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