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 .
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 12/09/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-19 are pending for examination.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment, outlined below.
Specifically, for the amended limitation of “the prediction time period being a predetermined time period from a current time, and before the detection capability actually falls below the required level”, Nishida discloses the time period as a period before the sensor actually fails (Nishida, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]; ¶[0144]-¶[0145]: before decrease area). Regarding the other amended limitation, applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new prior art rejection necessitated by the amended limitation.
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (title), the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification filed 12/09/2025 acceptable and withdraws the objection(s) to the specification (title).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 should read — based on the detection capability being predicted to fall below the required level within the prediction time period —.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
The following limitations recite a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without a structural modifier:
“a lighting control device that automatically turns on a headlight of the vehicle based on a fact that an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold” recited in claim(s) 2.
“a lighting control device that automatically emits a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold” recited in claim(s) 5, 16.
“a lighting control device that controls a lighting mode of a headlight configured to emit a high beam and a low beam” recited in claim(s) 6.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take a lighting control device as an electronic control unit or a processor and memory, based on FIG. 1, ¶[0042], and ¶[0144] of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “prevent a command signal from being output to the lighting control device for emitting the high beam regardless of oncoming traffic”, which lacks support in the disclosure as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19 recite performing a temporary control action “in response to determining that the detection capability has fallen below the required level within the prediction time period” or a limitation with similar wording, where the temporary control takes effect after the detection capability falls below the required level. Parent claim 1, however, recites “start a predetermined temporary control during the automated driving before the detection capability actually falls below the required level” where the temporary control is started before the detection capability falls below the required level. Therefore it is unclear when the temporary control begins.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, 14, 17, and 19 with the limitation of “in response to determining that the detection capability has fallen below the required level within the prediction time period” or similar wording removed.
Dependent claims 10 and 13 inherit and do not cure the deficiencies of their parent claims and are therefore rejected on the same basis outline above.
Claim 18 recites “the processor” however claim 18 introduces a lighting control device processor in addition to the processor recited in claim 1. Therefore it is unclear which processor “the processor” refers to.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 18 as referencing the original processor in claim 1 and will further take the lighting control device processor as “a lightning control device processor and memory”.
Claim 19 recites “the processor” however claim 19 introduces a lighting control device processor in addition to the processor recited in claim 1. Therefore it is unclear which processor “the processor” refers to.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 19 as referencing the original processor in claim 1 and will further take the lighting control device processor as “a lightning control device processor and memory”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida (US 20170232974 A1) in view of Tsuji et al. (US 20230391332 A1) and Ramsauer et al. (English Translation of DE 102017213496 A1), henceforth known as Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer respectively.
Nishida was first cited in IDS filed 8/1/2023. Tsuji was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Nishida discloses:
A vehicle control device configured to execute an automated driving of a vehicle, the automated driving being a control for autonomously driving the vehicle based on an output signal of an outside-monitoring sensor that detects an object existing around the vehicle,
(Nishida, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 13; ¶[0041]; ¶[0045]-¶[0047]; ¶[0050]; ¶[0052]-¶[0055];
Where the vehicle unit, implemented by a processor and memory, (A vehicle control device) performs autonomous driving of the vehicle (configured to execute an automated driving of a vehicle), where the autonomous driving is performed based on sensors of environment recognition system 14 that detect targets and obstacles around the vehicle (the automated driving being a control for autonomously driving the vehicle based on an output signal of an outside-monitoring sensor that detects an object existing around the vehicle))
the vehicle control device comprising a processor configured to:
(Nishida, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 13; ¶[0041]; ¶[0050])
predict whether a detection capability of the outside-monitoring sensor falls below a required level within a prediction time period based on a history of the output signal of the outside-monitoring sensor or dynamic map data related to a road section through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass, the required level corresponding to a performance quality of the outside-monitoring sensor required to continue the automated driving, the prediction time period being a predetermined time period from a current time, and before the detection capability actually falls below the required level, the history of the output signal being a history for a predetermined time period immediately before the current time, the dynamic map data being data acquired via a wireless communication from an external device; and
(Nishida, FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]; ¶[0144]-¶[0145]: before decrease area;
Where the vehicle unit predicts the performance of sensors in environment recognition system 14 will fall below a threshold level (predict whether a detection capability of the outside-monitoring sensor falls below a required level) based on entering a decrease area that is determined by evaluating sensor performance in a fixed time interval; therefore entering the decrease area is defined by a threshold sensor failure within a time interval (within a prediction time period), wherein the decrease area information includes updated location information of the area through which sensors fall below a threshold level, i.e. dynamic map data (based on a history of the output signal of the outside-monitoring sensor or dynamic map data related to a road section through which the vehicle is scheduled to pass); there are various threshold levels, of which middle and high preclude autonomous driving (the required level corresponding to a performance quality of the outside-monitoring sensor required to continue the automated driving); the prediction time period is based on a sensor evaluation interval for the decrease area, therefore the predicted failure will occur within a time interval from the current time and before the sensor fails (the prediction time period being a predetermined time period from a current time, and before the detection capability actually falls below the required level); the decrease area information is received from a remote center (the dynamic map data being data acquired via a wireless communication from an external device); for clarity, the claim language requires the prediction be based on a history of the output signal of the outside-monitoring sensor OR dynamic map data- therefore the limitations associated with the history are not required)
start [a predetermined temporary control] during the automated driving [before] the detection capability actually falls below the required level, based on the detection capability being predicted to fall below the required level within the prediction time period.
(Nishida, FIG. 12; ¶[0111];
Where the vehicle unit notifies the driver to switch to manual driving (start… during the automated driving, [when] the detection capability actually falls below the required level) based on the fact that the vehicle is in the decrease area, i.e. the sensor is predicted to fail within a fixed time interval (based on the detection capability being predicted to fall below the required level within the prediction time period)).
Nishida is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsuji teaches:
start a predetermined temporary control during the automated driving based on a fact that the detection capability is… below the required level...
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081];
Where the vehicle system switches to driving mode F, an automated emergency driving mode (start a predetermined temporary control during the automated driving) when an abnormality occurs such as a malfunctioning external detector (based on a fact that the detection capability is… below the required level)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida with the features taught by Tsuji because “…an objective of the present invention is to provide a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program capable of allowing a host vehicle to travel in a more appropriate state even in a period in which a driving mode is switched” (Tsuji, ¶[0006]) and “…it is possible to secure a sufficient inter-vehicle distance, give a sense of safety to the occupant, and carry out more appropriate automated driving” (Tsuji, ¶[0075]).
Nishida and Tsuji are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ramsauer teaches:
start a predetermined temporary control during the automated driving before the detection capability actually falls below the required level…
(Ramsauer,
page 2: “…This is particularly important in automated driving to autonomous driving, where intervention by the driver is preferably not provided.”;
pages 3-6: “…Preparatory measures for implementing the mitigation measures include, for example, shutting down loads, reducing power, diverting energy or using energy from alternative storage…Further preferred preparatory measures are a forward-looking adaptation of the driving strategy and / or re-prioritization of sensors and / or actuators used and / or a reconfiguration and / or reallocation of algorithms used and / or an adjustment of the power management and / or a preconditioning of individual vehicle components… Re-prioritization of the sensors and / or actuators used is understood to mean adaptation of the weighting, which sensors and / or actuators are preferably
switched off in the event of a fault.. Other possible preparatory measures may be: (temporary) shutdown of consumers, premature changeover of operating modes, timely redistribution of energy distribution of storage, switching consumers to non-critical power and energy branches, charging of (short-term) storage. Predictive pre-conditioning of the power grid if the power requirement for the predicated maneuver exceeds the available power...”;
page 6: “…In optional step 2, the current state of the vehicle is analyzed.
In step 3 it is analyzed which vehicle components and vehicle functions are used or
essential for the upcoming driving maneuver… step 6, preparatory measures for the execution of the fallback measures
are carried out”;
Where the autonomous vehicle carries out preparatory measures during autonomous driving (start a predetermined temporary control during the automated driving) before the actual occurrence of a fault (before the detection capability actually falls below the required level)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the inventio of Nishida and Tsuji with the features taught by Ramsauer because “…When operating a motor vehicle, as with all complex technical devices, malfunction or failure of individual components can occur. In order to avoid dangers, certain functions in the vehicle must still be maintained in certain situations, even in the event of a fault… This is particularly important in automated driving to autonomous driving, where intervention by the driver is preferably not provided.” (Ramsauer, page 2).
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 8, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Nishida discloses the detection capability is predicted to be at or above the required level as outlined above in claim 1 (Nishida, see at least FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]). Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0030]; ¶[0043])
execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance; and
(Tsuji, FIG. 3; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0074];
Where the vehicle system executes a following control in which the vehicle follows a preceding vehicle keeping a target inter-vehicle distance set by the driver (execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance))
set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be larger than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control the detection capability is… at or above the required level.
(Tsuji, FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057];
Where the vehicle system sets the target inter-vehicle distance D2 to be larger than the original inter-vehicle distance D3 in Mode F (set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be larger than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control), the original inter-vehicle distance D2 being used for Mode B where an abnormality such as a malfunctioning of the external detector does not occur (the original value being a value used for a case where the detection capability is… at or above the required level)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, in the temporary control, cause the vehicle to run alongside another vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane of the vehicle, or change a traveling lane of the vehicle to a lane adjacent to a road edge
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0057];
Where the vehicle system (wherein the processor is configured to), in Mode F due to a malfunction of the external detector (in the temporary control), cause the vehicle to move to a target position of a shoulder of the traveling, i.e. a lane adjacent to a road edge (cause the vehicle to run alongside another vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane of the vehicle, or change a traveling lane of the vehicle to a lane adjacent to a road edge)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, in the temporary control, output a notification requesting a user seated in a driver's seat to take over a driving operation from the vehicle control device or a notification requesting the user to start preparation for taking over the driving operation from the vehicle control device
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0077]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0082]-¶[0083]; ¶[0036]; ¶[0041]; ¶[0068];
Where the vehicle system (wherein the processor is configured to) determines an abnormality such as an external detector malfunction occurs at time t2, switches to Mode F and increases the inter-vehicle distance according to Mode F, i.e. starts the temporary control, before time t4 (in the temporary control), and outputs a request to the driver to switch to manual driving (output a notification requesting a user seated in a driver's seat to take over a driving operation from the vehicle control device or a notification requesting the user to start preparation for taking over the driving operation from the vehicle control device), wherein the vehicle includes HMI 30 that comprises a display that is attached to a driver monitoring camera, i.e. displays to the occupant in the driver’s seat and is used to convey the request for switching to manual driving).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 11. Tsuji further teaches:
wherein: the processor is configured to output a notification requesting a user seated in a driver's seat to take over a driving operation after start of the temporary control.
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0077]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0082]-¶[0083]; ¶[0036]; ¶[0041]; ¶[0068];
Where the vehicle system (wherein the processor is configured to) outputs a request to the driver to switch to manual driving (output a notification requesting a user seated in a driver's seat to take over a driving operation) after determining an abnormality such as an external detector malfunction occurs at time t2, and switching to Mode F, i.e. after starting the temporary control (after start of the temporary control), wherein the vehicle includes HMI 30 that comprises a display that is attached to a driver monitoring camera, i.e. displays to the occupant in the driver’s seat and is used to convey the request for switching to manual driving).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer, as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 6014207 A), henceforth known as Suzuki.
Suzuki was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 2, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji teaches in the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). The combination of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that automatically turns on a headlight of the vehicle based on a fact that an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold;
(Suzuki, FIG. 1; FIG. 2A-2D; Col 6, lines 37-47; Col 7, lines 17-31;
Where headlamp control apparatus, implemented by a microcomputer, includes control circuitry for communication (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device) and automatically turns on a headlamp when the illumination sensor 36 detects the illumination outside of the vehicle to be less than a threshold illumination value S (that automatically turns on a headlight of the vehicle based on a fact that an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold))
wherein the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, turn on the headlight
(Suzuki, FIG. 1; FIG. 4A-4B; Col 8, lines 30-65;
Where the headlamp control apparatus, in the SET 2 intermittent state (wherein the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control), keeps the headlamp illuminated even when the illumination is not below the threshold illumination value S (turn on the headlight even when the external illuminance is at or above the lighting threshold)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Suzuki because “…even when the vehicle passes through a portion where the vehicle exterior becomes bright/dark intermittently, the annoyance being involved with the switch control can be prevented. Moreover, because the switch on/off of the headlamp can be controlled, it is possible to improve the visibility of a driver” (Suzuki, Col 9, lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 17, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji teaches in the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). The combination of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a processor and memory configured to automatically turn on a headlight of the vehicle based on a fact that an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold;
(Suzuki, FIG. 1; FIG. 2A-2D; Col 6, lines 37-47; Col 7, lines 17-31;
Where headlamp control apparatus, implemented by a microcomputer, includes control circuitry for communication (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a processor and memory configured to) and automatically turns on a headlamp when the illumination sensor 36 detects the illumination outside of the vehicle to be less than a threshold illumination value S (automatically turn on a headlight of the vehicle based on a fact that an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold))
wherein the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, turn on the headlight
(Suzuki, FIG. 1; FIG. 4A-4B; Col 8, lines 30-65;
Where the headlamp control apparatus, in the SET 2 intermittent state (wherein the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control), keeps the headlamp illuminated even when the illumination is not below the threshold illumination value S (turn on the headlight even when the external illuminance is at or above the lighting threshold)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Suzuki because “…even when the vehicle passes through a portion where the vehicle exterior becomes bright/dark intermittently, the annoyance being involved with the switch control can be prevented. Moreover, because the switch on/off of the headlamp can be controlled, it is possible to improve the visibility of a driver” (Suzuki, Col 9, lines 7-12).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer, as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of IM et al. (US 20210237641 A1), henceforth known as IM.
IM was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 3, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Nishida discloses the detection capability is predicted to fall below the required level within the prediction time period, as outlined above in claim 1 (Nishida, see at least FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]). Tsuji teaches the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). The combination of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, IM teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(IM, FIG. 1; ¶[0040]: vehicle controller 150)
identify a deterioration factor when the detection capability is predicted to fall…, the deterioration factor being a factor of deterioration in the detection capability; and
(IM, FIG. 1; ¶[0040]-¶[0041]; ¶[0043];
Where the vehicle controller uses a multi-function camera, MFC, to detect a lane line, and a weather sensor to detect whether there is fog in front of the vehicle, i.e. predict when the MFC detection capability will fall due to fog in front of the vehicle (identify a deterioration factor when the detection capability is predicted to fall), wherein the fog reduces the visibility of the MFC (the deterioration factor being a factor of deterioration in the detection capability))
change a content of the temporary control according to the deterioration factor.
(IM, FIG. 1; ¶[0040]-¶[0041]; ¶[0043]; ¶[0045];
Where the vehicle controller turns on the fog lamps to increase visibility for the MFC).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by IM so that “…the fog lamp 170 may be turned on to improve a driver's visibility in such poor visibility conditions” (IM, ¶[0043]). That is, the fog lamps improve visibility for the driver and the MFC in foggy conditions.
Regarding claim 4, Nishida, Tsuji, Ramsauer, and IM teach the vehicle control device according to claim 3. Tsuji teaches in the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). IM further teaches:
wherein: the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, turn on a fog lamp before the vehicle enters the road section with fog or dust when the fog or dust is identified as the deterioration factor.
(IM, FIG. 1; ¶[0040]-¶[0041]; ¶[0043]; ¶[0045];
Where the vehicle controller turns on the fog lamps (wherein: the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, turn on a fog lamp) when the weather sensor detects fog in front of the vehicle, i.e. before the vehicle enters the road with fog (before the vehicle enters the road section with fog or dust when the fog or dust is identified as the deterioration factor)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by IM for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 3, above.
Claims 5-6, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Murase et al. (US 20210253021 A1), henceforth known as Murase.
Regarding claim 5, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Nishida further discloses:
the detection capability exceeds the required level
(Nishida, ¶[0144]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0092]; ¶[0138]-¶[0139];
Where the automatic vehicle stops before entering the decrease area, i.e. the sensor exceeds the required threshold level).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Tsuji and Ramsauer with the features taught by Nishida for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murase teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that automatically emits a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold;
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0050];
Where the lightning ECU 10 in communication with the vehicle (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device) and automatically emits a high beam or low beam based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle (that automatically emits a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold); though the term threshold is not explicitly recited, the use of a threshold to automatically turn on the lights based on the illuminance sensor is implied; see MPEP §2144.01)
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0026]; ¶[0129])
obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat, the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin; and
(Murase, FIG. 2; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU obtains information indicating a gaze direction of a driver (obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat), the gaze direction being determined by a line of sight from images captured by a camera positioned to capture the driver’s gaze, i.e. in the vehicle cabin (the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin))
output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the low beam regardless of oncoming traffic when the automated driving is being executed at night, the detection capability exceeds the required level even with the low beam, and the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle.
(Murase, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 6B; ¶[0029]; ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; ¶[0044]-¶[0045]; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU automatically lights the headlights based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle, i.e. at night, wherein the high beams are adapted based on oncoming vehicles but the low beams are always on (output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the low beam regardless of oncoming traffic when the automated driving is being executed at night), where the head lights are not affected by functionality of an object detecting sensor (the detection capability exceeds the required level even with the low beam), and the driver’s gaze does not affect the operation of the low beams at night, i.e. the driver can be looking away as shown in FIG. 6B (and the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Murase because the “…the glare that the driver senses changes depending on the direction of gaze of the driver” (Murase, ¶[0008]) and Murase’s“…disclosure provides a control device that yields appropriate antiglare performance” (Murase, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 6, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji teaches in the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murase teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that controls a lighting mode of a headlight configured to emit a high beam and a low beam,
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029];
Where the lighting ECU 10 in communication with the vehicle (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device) and automatically emits a high beam or low beam based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle (that controls a lighting mode of a headlight configured to emit a high beam and a low beam))
wherein: the headlight is configured to emit a semi-high beam that is longer in illuminating range than the low beam and shorter in illuminating range than the high beam, and the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the semi-high beam
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0030]-¶[0033]; ¶[0039]; ¶[0041]-¶[0045];
Where the lighting ECU controls the LEDs in the high beam to adapt their amount of irradiation up and down and turns them off in the presence of oncoming vehicles, i.e. a range that is higher than the low beams that remain on and lower than the full irradiation range of the high beam lamps (wherein: the headlight is configured to emit a semi-high beam that is longer in illuminating range than the low beam and shorter in illuminating range than the high beam), where in the adaptive high beam control the lighting ECU emits the adapted dimmed high beams (in the temporary control, output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the semi-high beam)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Murase because the “…the glare that the driver senses changes depending on the direction of gaze of the driver” (Murase, ¶[0008]) and Murase’s“…disclosure provides a control device that yields appropriate antiglare performance” (Murase, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Nishida further teaches:
determine whether the detection capability exceeds the required level
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Tsuji and Ramsauer with the features taught by Nishida for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murase teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that automatically emits a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold;
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0050];
Where the lightning ECU 10 in communication with the vehicle (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device) and automatically emits a high beam or low beam based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle (that automatically emits a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold); though the term threshold is not explicitly recited, the use of a threshold to automatically turn on the lights based on the illuminance sensor is implied; see MPEP §2144.01)
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0026]; ¶[0129])
obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat, the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin;
(Murase, FIG. 2; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU obtains information indicating a gaze direction of a driver (obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat), the gaze direction being determined by a line of sight from images captured by a camera positioned to capture the driver’s gaze, i.e. in the vehicle cabin (the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin))
… the detection capability exceeds the required level with the low beam; and
(Murase, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 6B; ¶[0029]; ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; ¶[0044]-¶[0045]; ¶[0109];
Where the head lights are not affected by functionality of an object detecting sensor (the detection capability exceeds the required level with the low beam))
prevent a command signal from being output to the lighting control device for emitting the high beam regardless of oncoming traffic during the automated driving at night, upon determining that the detection capability exceeds the required level with the low beam, and that the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle.
(Murase, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 6B; ¶[0029]; ¶[0032]-¶[0033]; ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; ¶[0044]-¶[0045]; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU automatically lights the headlights based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle, i.e. at night, wherein the high beams are adapted based on oncoming vehicles but the low beams are always on and where the high beam LEDs and low beam LEDs are the same, see ¶[0032]-¶[0033], just controlled to different levels of lighting; therefore if the headlights are configured for low beams or semi-high beams, then the high beams are not on (prevent a command signal from being output to the lighting control device for emitting the high beam regardless of oncoming traffic during the automated driving at night), where the head lights are not affected by functionality of an object detecting sensor (upon determining that the detection capability exceeds the required level with the low beam), and the driver’s gaze does not affect the operation of the low beams at night, i.e. the driver can be looking away as shown in FIG. 6B (and that the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Murase because the “…the glare that the driver senses changes depending on the direction of gaze of the driver” (Murase, ¶[0008]) and Murase’s“…disclosure provides a control device that yields appropriate antiglare performance” (Murase, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Nishida further discloses:
the detection capability exceeds the required level
(Nishida, ¶[0144]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0092]; ¶[0138]-¶[0139];
Where the automatic vehicle stops before entering the decrease area, i.e. the sensor exceeds the required threshold level).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Tsuji and Ramsauer with the features taught by Nishida for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murase teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a lightning control device processor and memory configured to automatically emit a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold;
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0050];
Where the lightning ECU 10 in communication with the vehicle (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a lightning control device processor and memory configured to) and automatically emits a high beam or low beam based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle (automatically emit a high beam or a low beam from a headlight when an external illuminance detected by an illuminance sensor installed in the vehicle is less than a predetermined lighting threshold); though the term threshold is not explicitly recited, the use of a threshold to automatically turn on the lights based on the illuminance sensor is implied; see MPEP §2144.01)
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0026]; ¶[0129])
obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat, the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin; and
(Murase, FIG. 2; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU obtains information indicating a gaze direction of a driver (obtain information indicating a gaze direction of a user seated in a driver's seat), the gaze direction being determined by a line of sight from images captured by a camera positioned to capture the driver’s gaze, i.e. in the vehicle cabin (the gaze direction of the user being a direction determined by analyzing images captured by a camera installed in a vehicle cabin))
output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the low beam regardless of oncoming traffic when the automated driving is being executed at night, the detection capability exceeds the required level even with the low beam, and the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle.
(Murase, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 6B; ¶[0029]; ¶[0040]-¶[0042]; ¶[0044]-¶[0045]; ¶[0109];
Where the lighting ECU automatically lights the headlights based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle, i.e. at night, wherein the high beams are adapted based on oncoming vehicles but the low beams are always on (output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the low beam regardless of oncoming traffic when the automated driving is being executed at night), where the head lights are not affected by functionality of an object detecting sensor (the detection capability exceeds the required level even with the low beam), and the driver’s gaze does not affect the operation of the low beams at night, i.e. the driver can be looking away as shown in FIG. 6B (and the gaze direction is not toward ahead of the vehicle)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Murase because the “…the glare that the driver senses changes depending on the direction of gaze of the driver” (Murase, ¶[0008]) and Murase’s“…disclosure provides a control device that yields appropriate antiglare performance” (Murase, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 19, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji teaches in the temporary control, outlined above in claim 1 (Tsuji, see FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 6; ¶[0030]; ¶[0054]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0064]; ¶[0079]; ¶[0081]). Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Murase teaches:
further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a lightning control device processor and memory configured to control a lighting mode of a headlight configured to emit a high beam and a low beam;
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029];
Where the lighting ECU 10 in communication with the vehicle (further comprising: a communication interface for communicating with a lighting control device that includes a lightning control device processor and memory configured to) and automatically emits a high beam or low beam based on signals from an illuminance sensor that detects the illuminance around the vehicle (control a lighting mode of a headlight configured to emit a high beam and a low beam))
wherein: the headlight is configured to emit a semi-high beam that is longer in illuminating range than the low beam and shorter in illuminating range than the high beam; and
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0030]-¶[0033]; ¶[0039]; ¶[0041]-¶[0045];
Where the lighting ECU controls the LEDs in the high beam to adapt their amount of irradiation up and down and turns them off in the presence of oncoming vehicles, i.e. a range that is higher than the low beams that remain on and lower than the full irradiation range of the high beam lamps (wherein: the headlight is configured to emit a semi-high beam that is longer in illuminating range than the low beam and shorter in illuminating range than the high beam))
the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the semi-high beam
(Murase, FIG. 1; ¶[0025]-¶[0029]; ¶[0030]-¶[0033]; ¶[0039]; ¶[0041]-¶[0045];
Where in the adaptive high beam control the lighting ECU emits the adapted dimmed high beams (the processor is further configured to, in the temporary control, output a command signal to the lighting control device for emitting the semi-high beam)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Murase because the “…the glare that the driver senses changes depending on the direction of gaze of the driver” (Murase, ¶[0008]) and Murase’s“…disclosure provides a control device that yields appropriate antiglare performance” (Murase, ¶[0010]).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Rebhan et al. (US 20160304092 A1), henceforth known as Rebhan.
Regarding claim 7, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Nishida discloses the detection capability is predicted to be at or above the required level as outlined above in claim 1 (Nishida, see at least FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]). Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0030]; ¶[0043])
execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance; and
(Tsuji, FIG. 3; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0074];
Where the vehicle system executes a following control in which the vehicle follows a preceding vehicle keeping a target inter-vehicle distance set by the driver (execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance))
set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be […] than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control the detection capability is… at or above the required level.
(Tsuji, FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0055]; ¶[0057];
Where the vehicle system sets the target inter-vehicle distance D2 to be larger than the original inter-vehicle distance D3 in Mode F (set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be… than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control), the original inter-vehicle distance D2 being used for Mode B where an abnormality such as a malfunctioning of the external detector does not occur (the original value being a value used for a case where the detection capability is… at or above the required level)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rebhan teaches:
set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be smaller than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control
(Rebhan, FIG. 1A-1B; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4A-4B; ¶[0020]; ¶[0031]; ¶[0041]-¶[0042]; ¶[0045]; ¶[0098];
Where the driver assistance system, implemented by a computer, decreases the preset gap between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle, as compared with the gap with no traffic, in the control in heavy traffic (set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be smaller than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Rebhan because “…In case of very dense traffic, the driver might prefer a smaller gap to the preceding vehicle than in normal traffic situations in order to prevent frequent cut-ins of other vehicles or in order to raise capacity utilization of the road” (Rebhan, ¶[0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to:
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0030]; ¶[0043])
execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance;
(Tsuji, FIG. 3; ¶[0019]; ¶[0052]; ¶[0074];
Where the vehicle system executes a following control in which the vehicle follows a preceding vehicle keeping a target inter-vehicle distance set by the driver (execute a vehicle following control that causes the vehicle to follow a preceding vehicle keeping a predetermined inter-vehicle distance)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations as a whole, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rebhan teaches:
set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be smaller by a predetermined amount than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control in response to determining
(Rebhan, FIG. 1A-1B; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4A-4B; ¶[0020]; ¶[0031]; ¶[0041]-¶[0042]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0045]; ¶[0098]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0083];
Where the driver assistance system, implemented by a computer, decreases, in predefined discrete steps, the preset gap between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle (set a target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be smaller by a predetermined amount), as compared with the gap with no traffic, in the control in heavy traffic (than an original value of the inter-vehicle distance in the temporary control ) when the vehicle is in heavy traffic (in response to determining that the vehicle is in a congested road section), wherein the original gap distance is set by a user, i.e. manually (the original value being a value set manually or set automatically according to a traveling speed of the vehicle))
set the target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be larger by a predetermined amount than the original value in the temporary control in response to determining
(Rebhan, FIG. 1A-1B; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4A-4B; ¶[0020]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0099]; ¶[0100];
Where the driver assistance system, implemented by a computer, increases, in predefined discrete steps, the preset gap between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle (set the target value of the inter-vehicle distance to be larger by a predetermined amount) as compared with the gap with heavy traffic, in the control with light traffic (than the original value in the temporary control in response to determining that the vehicle is not in a congested road section)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Rebhan because “…In case of very dense traffic, the driver might prefer a smaller gap to the preceding vehicle than in normal traffic situations in order to prevent frequent cut-ins of other vehicles or in order to raise capacity utilization of the road” (Rebhan, ¶[0013]) and “…in case of a confusing traffic situation or very low traffic density, a driver might prefer a larger gap to the preceding vehicle than in normal traffic situations in order to feel more comfortable” (Rebhan, ¶[0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Nishida, Tsuji, Ramsauer, and Rebhan teach the vehicle control device according to claim 7. Nishida discloses a prediction of deterioration in the detection capability as outlined above in claim 1 (Nishida, see at least FIG. 1; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 11; FIG. 12; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0075]-¶[0077]; ¶[0084]; ¶[0087]-¶[0091]; ¶[0093]; ¶[0098]-¶[0101]; ¶[0105]-¶[0109]; ¶[0137]-¶[0140]; ¶[0125]; ¶[0042]). Tsuji further teaches:
wherein: the processor is configured to return the target value of the inter-vehicle distance to the original value in response to a recovery of the detection capability at or above the required level in a situation where the target value of the inter-vehicle distance has been changed from the original value based on a… deterioration in the detection capability.
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0079];¶[0085];
Where the vehicle system allows the driving mode to be switched back to the original driving mode with the original inter-vehicle distance (wherein: the processor is configured to return the target value of the inter-vehicle distance to the original value) when the abnormality such as the malfunction of the external detector or the recognition performance of the detector is eliminated (in response to a recovery of the detection capability at or above the required level) when the inter-vehicle distance was changed due to a change in driving mode from the external detector malfunction or recognition deterioration (in a situation where the target value of the inter-vehicle distance has been changed from the original value based on a… deterioration in the detection capability)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Ramsauer, and Rebhan with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Debouk et al. (US 20110241862 A1), henceforth known as Debouk.
Regarding claim 14, Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Tsuji further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, in the temporary control, change lanes to a lane adjacent to a road edge …].
(Tsuji, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0019]; ¶[0057];
Where the vehicle system (wherein the processor is configured to), in Mode F due to a malfunction of the external detector (in the temporary control), cause the vehicle to move to a target position of a shoulder of the traveling, i.e. a lane adjacent to a road edge (change lanes to a lane adjacent to a road edge)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida and Ramsauer with the features taught by Tsuji for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Debouk teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to, in the temporary control, change lanes to a lane adjacent to a road edge and continue the automated driving until the detection capability actually falls below the required level.
(Debouk, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0015]; ¶[0061]; ¶[0035]; ¶[0056]; ¶[0072];
Where vehicles system 100, implemented by controller 200 (wherein the processor is configured to) performs the limited ability autonomous driving, LAAD (in the temporary control), and moves the vehicle to a road shoulder (change lanes to a lane adjacent to a road edge) where the autonomous driving in LAAD continues until a physical failure requires shutdown of autonomous driving and wherein the LAAD is performed within a time period before a threshold for stopping autonomous operation is met due to internal failure (and continue the automated driving until the detection capability actually falls below the required level)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Nishida, Tsuji, and Ramsauer with the features taught by Debouk because Debouk teaches a “…method for ensuring operation of a limited-ability autonomous driving enabled vehicle includes monitoring a plurality of specific conditions necessary for preferred and reliable use of limited-ability autonomous driving, and initiating a fault handling and degradation strategy configured to maneuver the vehicle to a preferred state if the driver is unable to manually control the vehicle when at least one of the specific conditions is either violated or will become violated” (Debouk, ¶[0009]). That is, the features taught by Debouk provide a safe method for handling a degraded autonomous vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ramsauer et al. (DE 102017213496 A1) discloses method for fault tolerant operation of a motor vehicle, comprising the steps of: anticipating recognizing upcoming driving maneuvers of a vehicle; Recognizing the necessary vehicle components and functions, anticipating potential errors in these components of the vehicle and functions that may affect the performance of the upcoming maneuvers, and proactively identifying evasive actions to bring the vehicle to a safe condition in the event of such failure. Foreign application of the English translation used in the new prior art rejection, above.
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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/T.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668