DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/17/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 4 and 14 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 with cited reference of Miura (U.S. Pub 2021/0001849) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 5-6 and 15-16 with cited references of Miura (U.S. Pub 2021/0001849) in view of Lacaze (U.S. Pub 2020/0384997) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (U.S. Pub 2021/0001849, filed Mar. 27, 2018) in view of Hyun (U.S. Pub 2018/0061253, filed Apr. 21, 2017).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 11, Miura discloses An autonomous driving control apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor device (see paragraphs 25-28, discloses an optical camera sensor & radar sensors for detecting an environment);
a memory configured to store instructions (see paragraph 23); and
a control device operatively connected to the sensor device and the memory, wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: identify information related to at least one of a driving state of a host vehicle, a driving mode of the host vehicle, a driving road of the host vehicle, a behavior state of at least one other vehicle adjacent to the host vehicle, or a combination of the driving state, the driving mode, the driving road, and the behavior state by use of the sensor device (see abstract & paragraphs 24-28, discloses identifying the behavior state of one other vehicle that is preceding the host vehicle by detecting its relative speed. In addition, paragraph 20 describes different driving modes for low and high acceleration. Further paragraph 30, describes accounting for host vehicle traveling state. Thus the system gathers information about the host vehicle state, driving conditions and behavior of other vehicles via sensors);
activate at least one parameter-variable control for deceleration control of the host vehicle by use of the information (see paragraphs 20 and 30-32, discloses activating a control parameter to achieve a target acceleration/deceleration rate so as to maintain a distance between host and preceding autonomous vehicles); and
control a deceleration of the host vehicle by use of a minimum value among at least one parameter identified based on the at least one parameter-variable control thus activated (see paragraphs 30-31, discloses selection of a lower vehicle speed based on either driver and/or the limit vehicle speed to be the target vehicle speed which is minimum value selection); Miura discloses a situation that includes a preceding vehicle traveling ahead of the host vehicle and another vehicle traveling ahead of the preceding vehicle, thus addressing the scenario of multiple vehicles ahead (see paragraph 34). He fails to teach or suggest identifying the second vehicle instead of the first vehicle as a target vehicle for the parameter-variable control.
Hyun discloses:
wherein the other vehicle include a first vehicle and a second vehicle which are present in front of the host vehicle (see fig. 3A & paragraph 80, discloses the host vehicle 10a having “other vehicle” that comprises a first and second vehicle in front of the host 302), and
wherein the instruction, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to determine whether the second vehicle instead of the first vehicle is identified as a target vehicle for the first parameter-variable control, in response that identification information of the second vehicle different from the first vehicle is identified while first data regarding a behavior of the first vehicle among the at least one other vehicle is identified (see paragraph 21, discloses target vehicle selection is based on host vehicle location thus selecting vehicles based on their position/distance relative to the host while accounting for behaviors in paragraphs 7-10. In addition, paragraphs 9 and 22, discloses consideration of positional/distance relationships between vehicles and mentions identifying and tracking a second target vehicle. Further using identification information for distinguishing between vehicles (identifiers) in paragraphs 18-22). Both Miura and Hyun are from the same field of endeavor regarding autonomous vehicle control system. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated intelligent target selection logic based on vehicle identification and behavior risk assessment has, they would enhance the system of Miura. The motivation for doing so would be to provide more accurate target tracking of dangerous vehicles resulting in improved safety with reduced collision risk has discussed by Miura in paragraph 3.
Regarding Dependent claims 2 and 12, Miura discloses wherein at least one parameter-variable control includes a first parameter-variable control, and wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: identify the behavior state of the at least one other vehicle including data regarding a deceleration of the at least one other vehicle, which is present in front of the host vehicle, by use of the sensor device; activate the first parameter-variable control based on the behavior state of the at least one other vehicle in response that at least one of a number of the data, an accuracy of the data, or a combination of the number of the data and the accuracy of the data satisfies a predetermined condition; and control the deceleration of the host vehicle through a first parameter, which is identified by use of the behavior state of the at least one other vehicle, based on the first parameter-variable control (see abstract & paragraph 26, discloses identifying the behavior state of one other vehicle that is preceding the host vehicle by detecting its relative speed. In addition, paragraph 20 describes different driving modes for low and high acceleration. Further paragraph 30, describes accounting for host vehicle traveling state).
Regarding Dependent claims 3 and 13, Miura discloses wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: determine that at least one of the number of the data, the accuracy of the data, or the combination of the number of the data and the accuracy of the data satisfies the predetermined condition, in response that the number of the data regarding a first vehicle among the at least one other vehicle is repeatedly identified within a predetermined cycle or more than predetermined cycle, or other data regarding the first vehicle, which includes a difference of a predetermined value or less than the predetermined value from the data, is identified a predetermined number of times or more than the predetermined number of time (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 7 and 17, Miura discloses wherein at least one parameter-variable control includes a third parameter-variable control, and wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: identify the driving mode of the host vehicle by use of the sensor device; and determine whether to activate the third parameter-variable control based on characteristics of the driving mode, based on at least one of the driving mode, a second required acceleration for each speed section of the driving mode, an actual acceleration of the host vehicle, or a combination of the driving mode, the second required acceleration for each speed section of the driving mode, and the actual acceleration of the host vehicle (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 8 and 18, Miura discloses wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: activate the third parameter-variable control, in response that error data including a difference between the second required acceleration and the actual acceleration is greater than or equal to a predetermined number; and control the deceleration of the host vehicle through a third parameter, which is identified by use of an average error value of the error data, based on the third parameter-variable control (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 9 and 19, Miura discloses wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: restore a parameter for controlling the deceleration of the host vehicle to a value prior to using the minimum value, based on identifying that the behavior state or a slope of the driving road does not satisfy a condition for generating a parameter, while controlling the deceleration of the host vehicle by use of the minimum value corresponding to a first parameter generated based on the behavior state of the at least one other vehicle or a second parameter generated based on the slope of the driving road (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 10 and 20, Miura discloses wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: determine whether there is a history in which a third parameter generated based on characteristics of the driving mode of the host vehicle is applied to control the deceleration, while controlling the deceleration of the host vehicle, based on the minimum value corresponding to the first parameter or the second parameter, in response that identifying that the behavior state or the slope does not satisfy the condition for generating the parameter; and change the parameter for controlling the deceleration of the host vehicle to a value to which the third parameter is applied, in response that the history is present (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
8. Claims 5-6 and 15-16 with cited references of Miura (U.S. Pub 2021/0001849, filed Mar. 27, 2018) in view of Hyun (U.S. Pub 2018/0061253, filed Apr. 21, 2017) further in view of Lacaze (U.S. Pub 2020/0384997, filed Jun. 6, 2019).
Regarding Dependent claims 5 and 15, Miura discloses activating a control parameter to achieve a target acceleration/deceleration rate so as to maintain a distance between host and preceding autonomous vehicles (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31). Miura fails to teach or suggest identifying the second vehicle instead of the first vehicle as a target vehicle for the parameter-variable control. Hyun discloses target vehicle selection is based on host vehicle location thus selecting vehicles based on their position/distance relative to the host while accounting for behaviors in paragraphs 7-10 & 21. Hyun does mention accounting for number of times an instant slope exceeds a threshold slope, however its in the context of sensed speed of the target vehicle and not road attributes (see paragraph 64). Lacaze discloses wherein at least one parameter-variable control includes a second parameter-variable control, and wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: identify a slope of the driving road by use of the sensor device; and determine whether to activate the second parameter-variable control based on the slope, based on at least one of whether the slope is included in a predetermined range, a first required acceleration, an actual acceleration of the host vehicle, or a combination of whether the slope is included in the predetermined range, the first required acceleration, and the actual acceleration of the host vehicle (see paragraphs 26-28, discloses accounting for road slope within a control system algorithm for an autonomous vehicle. He further discloses a multi-parameter control based on deceleration, acceleration etc. and discusses minimum separation distance based on safety parameters which is minimum deceleration limit based on multiple control algorithms, see paragraphs 22-32). Miura, Hyun and Lacaze are from the same field of endeavor regarding maintaining autonomous vehicle to vehicle distance using a control algorithm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for road slope in managing vehicle deceleration rates has Miura already suggests accounting for road attributes. One motivation is to ensure accurate control of deceleration of an autonomous vehicle by accounting for road conditions.
Regarding Dependent claims 6 and 16, Miura discloses activating a control parameter to achieve a target acceleration/deceleration rate so as to maintain a distance between host and preceding autonomous vehicles (see paragraphs 20 and 30-31). Miura fails to teach or suggest identifying the second vehicle instead of the first vehicle as a target vehicle for the parameter-variable control. Hyun discloses target vehicle selection is based on host vehicle location thus selecting vehicles based on their position/distance relative to the host while accounting for behaviors in paragraphs 7-10 & 21. Hyun does mention accounting for number of times an instant slope exceeds a threshold slope, however it’s in the context of sensed speed of the target vehicle and not road attributes (see paragraph 64). Lacaze discloses wherein the instructions, in response to execution of the control device, cause the autonomous driving control apparatus to: activate the second parameter-variable control in response that the slope is included in the predetermined range, and a difference between the first required acceleration and the actual acceleration is greater than or equal to a reference value; and control the deceleration of the host vehicle through a second parameter, which is identified by use of the difference, based on the second parameter-variable control (see paragraphs 26-28, discloses accounting for road slope within a control system algorithm for an autonomous vehicle. He further discloses a multi-parameter control based on deceleration, acceleration etc. and discusses minimum separation distance based on safety parameters which is minimum deceleration limit based on multiple control algorithms, see paragraphs 22-32). Miura, Hyun and Lacaze are from the same field of endeavor regarding maintaining autonomous vehicle to vehicle distance using a control algorithm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have accounted for road slope in managing vehicle deceleration rates has Miura already suggests accounting for road attributes. One motivation is to ensure accurate control of deceleration of an autonomous vehicle by accounting for road conditions.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Further Applicant states that claims 1 and 11 has been rewritten to include the limitations of the allowable claims and should be allowed (see pg. 11). However, the amendment fails to include all the subject matter of the dependent claims 4 and 14 including intervening claims has requested and instead selects a desired limitation from the claims. Thus, the incorporation of this subject matter creates a new scope and language for consideration, consequently resulting in a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
12/18/2025