DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/21/2025.
Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9 are pending for examination.
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. JP 2022-155272, filed on 09/28/2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
With regards to the objection to the title of the specification. The amended title is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-9 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims and the arguments made overcome the 103 rejections made in the non-final rejection.
The Applicant argues that the amended claims 1 and 9 overcome the 103 rejections made to these claims as Morisane et al. (JPH11175897 A; hereafter Morisane), Teramura et al. (JPH09290665 A; hereafter Teramura) and Zhao et al. (US 20210402993 A1; hereafter Zhao) individually or combined fail to teach or suggest the inventive features “the control unit determines whether the restart condition is satisfied after the restart proposal is provided to the driver” and “a proposal unit configured to provide, to the driver, a restart proposal for restarting the operation of the speed control function after the driver turns right or left the vehicle at the intersection while the operation of the speed control function is interrupted”.
Regarding the limitation of “the control unit determines whether the restart condition is satisfied after the restart proposal is provided to the driver”. The examiner agrees that Morisane does not teach this limitation. However Zhao does teach proposing to restart the speed control of the vehicle (as discussed below is section 35 USC 103).
Regarding the limitation “a proposal unit configured to provide, to the driver, a restart proposal for restarting the operation of the speed control function after the driver turns right or left the vehicle at the intersection while the operation of the speed control function is interrupted”. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably combine both teachings of Morisane and Zhao to propose the resuming of the speed control (taught in Zhao) after turning in an intersection (taught in Morisane). This combination would be obvious as both inventions are within the same field of endeavor (speed control systems of vehicles) and adding an additional step before resuming the speed control function taught by Morisane (such as asking the user whether they would like to resume the speed control function) would greatly improve the safety of the vehicle by ensuring the speed control function of the vehicle is not activated without the knowledge of the driver which in turn reduces any incidents on the road/intersections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Morisane as evidenced by Teramura and further in view of Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Morisane discloses a control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising:
a travel control unit configured to provide a speed control function for automatically controlling a speed of the vehicle ([0032]; “FIG. 16 is a control block configuration diagram of the third embodiment, and is a cruise control device comprising: following cruise control means 16 which performs following cruise control;”), wherein
the travel control unit
interrupts an operation of the speed control function ([0016]; “As shown in FIG. 6, the following cruise control is released a certain distance L1 before an intersection 62 where the host vehicle 61 is to turn right or left.”)
restarts the operation of the speed control function when a restart condition is satisfied ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG. In step 179, the position of the vehicle is read, and in step 180, the right/left turn intersection passage recognition unit 161 recognizes whether the vehicle 185 has passed through the intersection 182.”), and
the restart condition includes that an operation level of a driving operation element of the vehicle by the driver after the driver turns the vehicle right or left at an intersection is within a predetermined range. ([0032]; “and resumption means 162 which resumes the released following cruise control or constant speed cruise control, based on the recognition result of the right/left turn intersection passage recognition means 161.”)
Morisane does not teach:
interrupts an operation of the speed control function in response to a braking operation element of the vehicle being operated by a driver during the operation of the speed control function
However, Teramura in the same field of endeavor teaches:
interrupts an operation of the speed control function in response to a braking operation element of the vehicle being operated by a driver during the operation of the speed control function ([0033]; “When the vehicle distance control state of the cruise control is being executed, if the driver depresses the brake pedal, etc., and the brake switch 13a is turned ON, the cruise control is temporarily released (S10 to S30).”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane and Teramura cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to apply the temporary release of the cruise control by the press of the brake switch as a manual operation to interrupt cruise control rather than solely relying on the controller of the cruise control system detecting an intersection where a turn will be made. This ensures that the driver intends to temporarily release the cruise control.
Although Morisane teaches a speed control device capable of resuming the speed control operations after the vehicle completes a turn on an intersection ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG. In step 179, the position of the vehicle is read, and in step 180, the right/left turn intersection passage recognition unit 161 recognizes whether the vehicle 185 has passed through the intersection 182.”), Morisane does not teach a proposal unit that is configured to provide the driver with a proposal to restart the operation of the speed control.
However Zhao, within the same field of endeavor (speed control systems) teaches a proposal unit configured to provide, to the driver, a restart proposal for restarting the operation of the speed control function after the driver turns right or left the vehicle at the intersection while the operation of the speed control function is interrupted, ([0066]; “In various embodiments, a notification is provided to the driver inquiring as to whether the driver wishes to resume movement of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura and Zhao. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane, Teramura and Zhao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to send the driver a notification to confirm the driver’s intent to resume the cruise control functions found in Morisane. This would prevent accidental restarting of the cruise control in instances where the driver wants to have manual control over the vehicle.
Although Morisane does teach determining whether the restart condition is satisfied ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG.”). Morisane does not teach determining this after the restart proposal is provided.
However, Zhao within the same field of endeavor does teach a restart proposal (described above). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to implement the restart proposal taught in Zhao to propose restarting the speed control function after the restart condition (completing the turn on an intersection). This combination would be obvious as proposing to restart the speed control rather than simply restarting the speed control ensures that speed control is only activated when intended. This would increase safety for both the driver as well as surrounding pedestrians/other vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura and Zhao. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane, Teramura and Zhao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to send the driver a notification to confirm the driver’s intent to resume the cruise control functions found in Morisane. This would prevent accidental restarting of the cruise control in instances where the driver wants to have manual control over the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Teramura in the same field of endeavor teaches the restart condition includes that a time elapsing after the operation of the speed control function is interrupted is equal to or shorter than a threshold value. ([0021]; “As a parameter other than the vehicle speed, for example, a configuration may be adopted in which it is determined whether or not the request is a temporary one based on the duration of the driving state that caused the temporary release. In the case of a temporary request, it is generally believed that the driving state that caused the temporary release of automatic control will only be in effect for a short period of time;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane and Teramura cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to implement a time constraint in order to distinguish between an intentional temporary deactivation of the cruise control and an intent to completely turn off cruise control and switch to manual control.
Regarding claim 4, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Teramura in the same field of endeavor teaches the proposal unit provides the restart proposal to the driver when a proposal condition is satisfied, and
the proposal condition includes one of more of the following conditions:
the operation level of the driving operation element after the operation of the speed control function is interrupted is equal to or lower than a threshold value
an operation level of the braking operation element after the operation of the speed control function is interrupted is equal to or lower than a threshold value; and
an acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle after the operation of the speed control function is interrupted is equal to or lower than a threshold value. ([0033]; “If the main switch 12a of the cruise control switch 12 is turned off during this temporary release state, the process moves to complete release of the cruise control (S40→S50). On the other hand, if the main switch 12a remains ON (S40=YES), it is further determined whether the accelerator switch 13b is ON (S60). If it is determined here that the accelerator switch 13b is ON, it is further determined whether or not a preceding vehicle has been detected based on information from the scanning distance meter 6 (S70), and if a preceding vehicle has been detected, when the accelerator switch 13b is turned OFF, the vehicle distance control is automatically restored (S80, S90).”
Note: The accelerator switch is turned ON when the acceleration pedal is being pressed and OFF when the accelerator pedal is not being pressed.);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura and Zhao. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane, Teramura, and Zhao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to apply the temporary release of the cruise control by the press of the brake switch as a manual operation to interrupt cruise control rather than solely relying on the controller of the cruise control system detecting an intersection where a turn will be made. This ensures that the driver intends to temporarily release the cruise control.
Regarding claim 5, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morisane discloses the travel control unit determines that the driver turns the vehicle right or left at the intersection based on at least one of:
a result of recognizing an environment through a camera;
an operation level of a steering controlling element of the vehicle, a change of a turn indicator of the vehicle, or a change in dynamic traveling state of the vehicle; and
map information and position information of the vehicle. ([0028]; “FIG. 15 shows the control block configuration of the interchange arrival recognition means 121, which is composed of map information 71 in which coordinates of intersections and interchanges are recorded, an interchange recognition unit 151 which recognizes the interchange at which the vehicle will exit based on this map information 71 and route information from the route guidance means 13, and an arrival determination unit 73 which determines whether the vehicle has arrived a certain distance before the interchange at which the vehicle will exit based on the recognition result from the interchange recognition unit 151 and position information from the position detection means 12.”)
Regarding claim 6, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morisane discloses when the restart condition is satisfied, the travel control unit restarts the operation of the speed control function using a speed set before the speed control function is interrupted. ([0038]; “When the vehicle is at a position 183 after passing through an intersection 182 in FIG. 18, it is recognized that the vehicle has passed through the intersection allowing right or left turns, and the following cruise control means 16 resumes the following cruise control.”)
Regarding claim 7, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Morisane discloses the restart condition includes that it is permitted by a provider of the speed control function to restart the speed control function when the restart condition is satisfied. ([0031]; “Furthermore, in the cruise control device 10" of the third embodiment of the present invention, in the first embodiment of the present invention, which is configured to prevent inadvertent follow-up cruise control or constant speed cruise control from being performed at an intersection where the host vehicle turns right or left, the follow-up cruise control or constant speed cruise control that was released after the host vehicle has passed the intersection is resumed, thereby eliminating the hassle of the driver's operation.”)
Regarding claim 8, Morisane in view of Teramura and in further view of Zhao discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Although Morisane utilizes a cruise control device to interrupt and restart the cruise control functions of a vehicle ([0012]; “The cruise control device 10 in FIG. 1 is composed of cruise control means 11 equipped with follow-up cruise control means 16 or constant speed cruise control means 17, position detection means 12 which detects the position of the host vehicle, route guidance means 13 which performs route guidance to a destination, right/left turn intersection arrival recognition means 14”), it does not explicitly disclose the program storage means to run the methods disclosed within the specification.
Morisane does not teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the control device according to claim 1.
However, Teramura in the same field of endeavor teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the control device according to claim 1. ([0024]; “The auto-cruise control device 1 is configured around a computer 4 , and includes a scanning distance measuring device 6 , a steering angle sensor 8 , a vehicle speed sensor 10 , a cruise control switch 12 , a display 14 , an engine output control unit 20 and a brake control unit 18 .”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane and Teramura cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and doing so would allow for storing and use of the program using a storage medium, and allow for use in other computers.
Regarding claim 9, Morisane discloses:
A method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising:
providing a speed control function for automatically controlling a speed of the vehicle ([0032]; “FIG. 16 is a control block configuration diagram of the third embodiment, and is a cruise control device comprising: following cruise control means 16 which performs following cruise control;”),
restarting the operation of the speed control function when a restart condition is satisfied ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG. In step 179, the position of the vehicle is read, and in step 180, the right/left turn intersection passage recognition unit 161 recognizes whether the vehicle 185 has passed through the intersection 182.”),
wherein the restart condition includes that an operation level of a driving operation element of the vehicle by the driver after the driver turns right or left the vehicle at an intersection is within a predetermined range. ([0032]; “and resumption means 162 which resumes the released following cruise control or constant speed cruise control, based on the recognition result of the right/left turn intersection passage recognition means 161.”)
Morisane does not teach:
interrupting an operation of the speed control function in response to a braking operation element of the vehicle being operated by a driver during the operation of the speed control function
However, Teramura in the same field of endeavor teaches:
interrupting an operation of the speed control function in response to a braking operation element of the vehicle being operated by a driver during the operation of the speed control function ([0033]; “When the vehicle distance control state of the cruise control is being executed, if the driver depresses the brake pedal, etc., and the brake switch 13a is turned ON, the cruise control is temporarily released (S10 to S30).”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane and Teramura cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to apply the temporary release of the cruise control by the press of the brake switch as a manual operation to interrupt cruise control rather than solely relying on the controller of the cruise control system detecting an intersection where a turn will be made. This ensures that the driver intends to temporarily release the cruise control.
Although Morisane teaches a speed control device capable of resuming the speed control operations after the vehicle completes a turn on an intersection ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG. In step 179, the position of the vehicle is read, and in step 180, the right/left turn intersection passage recognition unit 161 recognizes whether the vehicle 185 has passed through the intersection 182.”), Morisane does not teach a proposal unit that is configured to provide the driver with a proposal to restart the operation of the speed control.
However Zhao, within the same field of endeavor (speed control systems) teaches a proposal unit configured to provide, to the driver, a restart proposal for restarting the operation of the speed control function after the driver turns right or left the vehicle at the intersection while the operation of the speed control function is interrupted, ([0066]; “In various embodiments, a notification is provided to the driver inquiring as to whether the driver wishes to resume movement of the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura and Zhao. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane, Teramura and Zhao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to send the driver a notification to confirm the driver’s intent to resume the cruise control functions found in Morisane. This would prevent accidental restarting of the cruise control in instances where the driver wants to have manual control over the vehicle.
Although Morisane does teach determining whether the restart condition is satisfied ([0037]; “The following cruise control is resumed after the host vehicle 181 has passed an intersection 182 at which it has made a right or left turn, as shown in FIG.”). Morisane does not teach determining this after the restart proposal is provided.
However, Zhao within the same field of endeavor does teach a restart proposal (described above). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to implement the restart proposal taught in Zhao to propose restarting the speed control function after the restart condition (completing the turn on an intersection). This combination would be obvious as proposing to restart the speed control rather than simply restarting the speed control ensures that speed control is only activated when intended. This would increase safety for both the driver as well as surrounding pedestrians/other vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morisane with Teramura and Zhao. This modification would have been obvious as both Morisane, Teramura and Zhao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle cruise control operating methods) and it would have been beneficial to send the driver a notification to confirm the driver’s intent to resume the cruise control functions found in Morisane. This would prevent accidental restarting of the cruise control in instances where the driver wants to have manual control over the vehicle.
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 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 BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on (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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights