DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/22/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/22/2026 have been fully considered and some have been found persuasive and some are considered moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18-20, filed 3/22/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC §103 for claims 2and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2 and 6 of 1/22/2026 has been withdrawn.
Application’s arguments, see pages 20-24, with respect to rejections under 35 USC §103 for claims 7 and 8 are considered moot because the amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection and indication of allowable subject matter as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13, “the control grasping section is configured to” should read “the control grasping section is further configured to”. 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:
“a time determination section” in claims 1-2 and 6. Applicant’s specification discloses “the environment recognition section 62 corresponds to the ‘time determination section’” in paragraph [0105] and that the environment recognition section 62 is a program to be executed by the processing section in paragraph [0043].
“a traveling control section” in claims 1-2 and 6. Applicant’s specification discloses “the action determination section 63 corresponds to the ‘traveling control section’” in paragraph [0105] and that the action determination section 63 is a program to be executed by the processing section in paragraph [0043].
“a notification control section” in claims 4, 8, 18, and 22-23. Applicant’s specification discloses “the presentation control section 88 corresponds to the ‘notification control section’” in paragraph [0105] and that the presentation control section 88 is a program to be executed by the HCU 100 which is a computer (see [0057]).
“a first traveling control section” in claim 7. Applicant’s specification discloses “the driving assistance ECU 50a corresponds to the ‘first traveling control section’” in paragraph [0122].
“a second traveling control section” in claim 7. Applicant’s specification discloses “the action determination section 63 corresponds to the ‘traveling control section’ and the ‘second traveling control section’” in paragraph [0122] and that the action determination section 63 is a program to be executed by the processing section in paragraph [0043].
“a monitoring grasping section” in claim 7. Applicant’s specification discloses “the information acquisition section 81 corresponds to the ‘monitoring grasping section’” in paragraph [0122] and that the information acquisition section 81 is a program to be executed by the HCU 100 which is a computer (see [0057]).
“a control grasping section” in claims 8, 18, and 22-23. Applicant’s specification discloses “the information cooperation section 82 corresponds to the ‘control grasping section’” in paragraph [0105] and that the information cooperation section 82 is a program to be executed by the HCU 100 which is a computer (see [0057]).
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 § 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shokonji (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0222480 A1) in view of Wang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0061299 A1) and further in view of Szawarski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0272977 A1; hereinafter Szawarski) and further in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0402993 A1; hereinafter Zhao) and Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,668,740; hereinafter Wang 2).
Regarding claim 7, Shokonji discloses:
An automated drive control device that enables traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function (follow-up start control device 1 with controller 11 and automatic operation switch 15, see at least [0026]-[0027]), the automated drive control device comprising:
a first traveling control section configured to control the traveling of the subject vehicle by driving assistance control (normal ACC operation, see at least [0027]) ;
a second traveling control section configured to control the traveling of the subject vehicle by autonomous traveling control (automatic operation switch 15, see at least [0027]; automatic stop and start of vehicle, see at least [0032])
a control grasping section configured to determine a reason for a stop of the subject vehicle by distinguishing between a stop caused by congestion (first determination unit determines presence or absences of traffic jam on a road and estimates a category of the road, see at least [0008]) and;
(i) when the control grasping section determines that the reason for the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the driving assistance control is a stop caused by congestion, the first traveling control section requires an input by the driver for restarting the subject vehicle on condition that an elapsed time after the stop exceeds a predetermined time (in a case where the stop time is longer than the follow-up start permission time, the ACC_ECU 11 may cancel the start up control and require the driver to step down on the accelerator pedal or make an operation such as turning on the automatic switch again, see at least [0034])
Shokonji does not explicitly disclose:
driving assistance control in which a driver of the subject vehicle is obliged to monitor periphery;
driver is not obliged to monitor the periphery; and
a monitoring grasping section configured to grasp whether periphery monitoring by the driver is being executed
a stop caused by emergency avoidance control
the control grasping section is configured to grasp, in deceleration leading to the stop of the subject vehicle, a magnitude of acceleration in a deceleration direction occurring in the subject vehicle and determine whether the acceleration exceeds a threshold; and
(ii) when the control grasping section determines that the reason for the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control is a stop caused by congestion, the second traveling control section does not require an input by the driver for restarting the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling even when it is determined that the elapsed time exceeds the predetermined time
(iii) when the control grasping section determines that the reason for the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control is a stop caused by emergency avoidance control and determines that the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to or greater than the threshold, the second traveling control section resumes traveling of the subject vehicle by the autonomous traveling control on a condition that the monitoring grasping section confirms that the driver is executing the periphery monitoring
However, Wang teaches:
a first traveling control section that controls the traveling of the subject vehicle by driving assistance control in which a driver of the subject vehicle is obliged to monitor periphery (six levels of autonomy defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) defines L0 in which vehicle is driven manually but some warnings or notifications are used, see at least [0032]);
a second traveling control section that controls the traveling of the subject vehicle by autonomous traveling control in which the driver is not obliged to monitor the periphery (L5 defines fully automatic driving and no input from diver is required, see at least [0032]); and
a monitoring grasping section configured to grasp whether periphery monitoring by the driver is being executed (a camera to monitor the driver such as gaze detection, see at least [0032])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptive cruise control start of a vehicle disclosed by Shokonji by adding the autonomous driving level taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to switch between driving modes based on, e.g., sensor data received from sensors” (see [0035]) furthermore, it is well known in the art that there are levels of autonomy as set out by the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Additionally, Szawarski teaches:
a stop caused by emergency avoidance control (collision avoidance system can help to avoid collision by sending instructions to a vehicle braking system, see at least [0046])
(ii) when the control grasping section determines that the reason for the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control is a stop caused by congestion, the second traveling control section does not require an input by the driver for restarting the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling even when it is determined that the elapsed time exceeds the predetermined time (at level 5 full automation as defined by the SAE the vehicle can handle all tasks without any driver intervention),
and if the subject vehicle, having been traveling by the autonomous traveling control, stops by emergency avoidance (collision avoidance system can help to avoid collision by sending instructions to a vehicle braking system, see at least [0046])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptive cruise control start of a vehicle disclosed by Shokonji and the autonomous driving level taught by Wang by adding the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “help to avoid a collision event or minimize the damage, impact, severity, etc. that occurs as a result of a collision event” (see [0046]).
Furthermore, Zhao teaches:
the second traveling control section resumes the traveling of the subject vehicle by the autonomous traveling control when the monitoring grasping section confirms that the driver is executing the periphery monitoring (if a driver attentiveness exceeds a threshold when vehicle has stopped, the vehicle automatically resuming movement, see at least [0016])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptive cruise control start of a vehicle disclosed by Shokonji, the autonomous driving level taught by Wang, and the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski by adding the driver attentiveness taught by Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to provide instructions for automatically resuming movement of the vehicle, when the target vehicle resumes movement, based on the monitoring of the driver of the vehicle” (see [0017]).
Furthermore, Wang 2 teaches:
the control grasping section is configured to grasp, in deceleration leading to the stop of the subject vehicle, a magnitude of acceleration in a deceleration direction occurring in the subject vehicle and determine whether the acceleration exceeds a threshold (compute vehicle deceleration and compare with a threshold deceleration value, if vehicle deceleration exceeds threshold deceleration value, onset of crash event is determined, see at least col. 1 lines 51-53 and col. 2 lines 18-21); and
determines that the magnitude of the acceleration is equal to or greater than the threshold (if vehicle deceleration exceeds threshold deceleration value, onset of crash event is determined, see at least col. 1 lines 51-53)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adaptive cruise control start of a vehicle disclosed by Shokonji, the autonomous driving level taught by Wang, the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski, and the driver attentiveness taught by Zhao by adding the braking threshold taught by Wang 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine an onset of crash event (see col. 1 lines 51-52).
Claims 8, 10-11, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0256106 A1; hereinafter Lee) in view of Shokonji, Yoshida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0311935 A1; hereinafter Yoshida), and Tobe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0276580 A1; hereinafter Tobe).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses:
A presentation control device (output device 130 outputs visual and audible information, see at least [0045]) that is used in a subject vehicle capable of traveling by an automated driving function and controls presentation of information related to the automated driving function (output control situations such as setting of autonomous driving, see at least [0045]; autonomous driving control for a host vehicle, see at least [0011]), the presentation control device comprising:
a control grasping section configured to grasp whether autonomous traveling control, is being executed by the automated driving function (autonomous system on/off command according to manipulation of user, see at least [0042]);
a notification control section configured to, when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops (processor 170 stops host vehicle and maintains stop state when detecting stop of front vehicle, see at least [0080]),
the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information related to resumption of traveling of the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling control, (identify whether driver gaze is located within front side gaze area and when driver gaze is not at the front in step S130, process continues to notify driver of departure of the front vehicle in step S150, see at least [0081]-[0083] and Fig. 4), and
the notification control section omits the notification of the traveling resumption information (when driver gaze is located at the front side in step S130, the process ends, see at least [0084] and Fig. 4)
Lee does not explicitly disclose:
notify traveling resumption information related to resumption of the traveling of the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling control
autonomous traveling control, in which a driver of the subject vehicle is not obliged to monitor periphery
the control grasping section is configured to grasp, in deceleration leading to the stop of the subject vehicle, a magnitude of acceleration in a deceleration direction occurring in the subject vehicle and determine whether the acceleration exceeds a notification threshold
and the notification of the traveling resumption information does not include a hands-on notification
when the control grasping section determines that the acceleration is less than the notification threshold, the notification control section omits the notification
However, Shokonji teaches:
notify traveling resumption information related to resumption of the traveling of the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling control (in causing automatic start of own vehicle, notification equipment may notify driver of the start, see at least [0066])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forward vehicle stop and departure notification disclosed by Lee by adding the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order
Additionally, Yoshida teaches:
autonomous traveling control, in which a driver of the subject vehicle is not obliged to monitor periphery (mode A is a state of automatic driving not requiring gripping or forward monitoring of driver, see at least [0045])
the notification of the traveling resumption information does not include a hands-on notification (when vehicle is to be driven manually HMI outputs prompting to grip the steering wheel, see at least [0093]) *Examiner sets forth that if the change does not occur and the vehicle stays in autonomous mode, a request to grip would not be output
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forward vehicle stop and departure notification disclosed by Lee and the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji by adding the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow vehicles to be autonomously controlled while following a preceding vehicle (see [0052]).
Furthermore, Tobe teaches:
the control grasping section is configured to grasp, in deceleration leading to the stop of the subject vehicle, a magnitude of acceleration in a deceleration direction occurring in the subject vehicle and determine whether the acceleration exceeds a notification threshold (when deceleration of vehicle exceeds deceleration limit value, notification section may perform control to issue a switch request, see at least [0065]; when deceleration exceeds deceleration limit value, issue a warning to the driver, see at least [0106])
when the control grasping section determines that the acceleration exceeds the notification threshold, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information related to resumption of traveling of the subject vehicle under the autonomous traveling control and the notification of the traveling resumption information does not include a hands-on notification (when deceleration of vehicle exceeds deceleration limit value, notification section may perform control to issue a switch request, see at least [0065]; when deceleration exceeds deceleration limit value, issue a warning to the driver, see at least [0106]; after the warning, a driving switch request is issued and if the switch is not accepted, the vehicle performs an evasive maneuver, see at least [0089]; second driving mode requests hands-on request while third driving mode does not require driver to grip the steering wheel, see at least [0050] and [0052]) *Examiner sets forth One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the vehicle were being driven in the third driving mode and the switch does not happen, the vehicle will continue to be controlled in the third mode during the evasive maneuver
when the control grasping section determines that the acceleration is less than the notification threshold, the notification control section omits the notification of the traveling resumption information (if deceleration does not exceed the deceleration limit, the process ends, see at least Fig. 7) *Examiner sets forth if the process ends, a notification is not issued
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forward vehicle stop and departure notification disclosed by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, and the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida by adding the deceleration limit taught by Tobe with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to increases cases where it is possible to avoid a collision in a driving mode with a high degree of automation” (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
the notification control section is further configured to cancel, when the traveling of the subject vehicle by the autonomous traveling control is scheduled to be resumed, the notification of the traveling resumption information until a predetermined time elapses from stop (processor does not operate the front vehicle departure notification function when the host vehicle starts a movement within a predetermined time period after the host vehicle is stopped, see at least [0063]), and starts the notification of the traveling resumption information after the predetermined time elapses from the stop (when start of host vehicle is not detected within the predetermined time period after host vehicle is stopped, the departure notification is operated, see at least [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion (front vehicle repeatedly stops and starts in a traffic jam situation, see at least [0004]), the notification control section starts the notification of the traveling resumption information after a predetermined time elapses from the stop (when start of host vehicle is not detected within the predetermined time period after host vehicle is stopped, the departure notification is operated, see at least [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above but does not teach:
when the subject vehicle stops, the control grasping section grasps a reason for stop of the subject vehicle, and the notification control section changes a content of the traveling resumption information depending on the reason for the stop
However, Shokonji teaches:
when the subject vehicle stops, the control grasping section grasps a reason for stop of the subject vehicle (first determination unit determines presence or absences of traffic jam on a road and estimates a category of the road, see at least [0008], and the notification control section changes a content of the traveling resumption information depending on the reason for the stop (follow-up start up permission time is variably set in accordance with the road categories, see at least [0032]; timing of follow-up start up permission determines whether vehicle continues automatic operation or switches to require driver input, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the autonomous driving level taught by Wang by adding the traffic jam and road category taught by Shokonji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a follow-up start control device for a vehicle that makes it possible to enhance user-friendliness and versatility” (see [0007]) for a multitude of road types.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
the traveling resumption information includes at least information indicating an action by the driver that is required for restarting the subject vehicle (display requires an intention of departure of driver, see at least [0003]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
The presentation control device (output device 130 outputs visual and audible information, see at least [0045]) according to claim 8, further comprising:
a monitoring grasping section configured to grasp whether periphery monitoring by the driver is being executed (driver monitoring device 150 detects face and gaze of driver using camera analysis, see at least [0050]);
wherein: when the driver is not executing the periphery monitoring, the notification control section makes a notification of the traveling resumption information (identify whether driver gaze is located within front side gaze area and where driver gaze is not at the front in step s130, process continues to notify driver of departure of the front vehicle in step s150, see at least [0081]-[0083] and Fig. 4), and
when the driver is executing the periphery monitoring, the notification control section omits the notification of the traveling resumption information (when driver gaze is located at the front side in step s130, the process ends, see at least [0084] and Fig. 4) *Examiner sets forth if process ends, no notification is made; and
Lee does not disclose:
the notification of the traveling resumption information does not include a hands-on notification and notifies that a steering operation of the subject vehicle is not required
However, Yoshida teaches:
the notification of the traveling resumption information does not include a hands-on notification and notifies that a steering operation of the subject vehicle is not required (when vehicle is to be driven manually HMI outputs prompting to grip the steering wheel, see at least [0093]) *Examiner sets forth that if the change does not occur and the vehicle stays in autonomous mode, a request to grip would not be output
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forward vehicle stop and departure notification disclosed by lee and the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji by adding the autonomous driving in traffic jam pilot mode without driving monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow vehicles to be autonomously controlled while following a preceding vehicle (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
the notification control section is further configured to cancel, when the traveling of the subject vehicle by the autonomous traveling control is scheduled to be resumed, a notification of the traveling resumption information until a predetermined time elapses from stop (processor does not operate the front vehicle departure notification function when the host vehicle starts a movement within a predetermined time period after the host vehicle is stopped, see at least [0063]), and starts the notification of the traveling resumption information after the predetermined time elapses from the stop (when start of host vehicle is not detected within the predetermined time period after host vehicle is stopped, the departure notification is operated, see at least [0080])
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion (front vehicle repeatedly stops and starts in a traffic jam situation, see at least [0004]), the notification control section starts a notification of the traveling resumption information after a predetermined time elapses from the stop (when start of host vehicle is not detected within the predetermined time period after host vehicle is stopped, the departure notification is operated, see at least [0080]).
Claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et in view of Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Wang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0061299 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
the notification control section does not include the notification in the notification of the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control even when the acceleration exceeds the notification threshold (processor does not operate the front vehicle departure notification function when the host vehicle starts a movement within a predetermined time period after the host vehicle is stopped, see at least [0063])
Lee does not disclose:
hands-on notification
gripping of a steering portion
However, Wang teaches:
when gripping of a steering portion by the driver is required for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle (driver is required to grip the steering wheel at a series of locations to provide confirmation of driving readiness, see at least [0056]), the notification control section includes hands-on notification that requests the driver to grip the steering portion in the notification of the traveling resumption information (driver is required to grip steering wheel at specific locations where steering wheel is vibrating, see at least [0056])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the departure notification taught by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the driver grip requirement taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide confirmation of driving readiness” (see [0056]).
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Uchida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088572 A1; hereinafter Uchida).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
when the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control is predicted (measure a distance from front vehicle and maintain a safety distance between vehicles, see at least [0003]; controlling braking control device when detecting a stop of the front vehicle, see at least [0062]) *Examiner sets forth a stop of host vehicle is predicted when a stopping of the front vehicle is detected
Lee and Wang do not teach:
the notification control section starts the notification of the traveling resumption information before the subject vehicle stops
However, Uchida teaches:
the notification control section starts the notification of the traveling resumption information before the subject vehicle stops (passenger is informed that speed of vehicle will be decelerated in accordance with speed of a preceding vehicle, see at least [0043])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the departure notification disclosed by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the deceleration notification taught by Uchida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “making the passenger feel more safe and comfortable with the autonomous control” (see [0063]).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
The presentation control device (output device 130 outputs visual and audible information, see at least [0045]) according to claim 8, wherein:
when the stop of the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control is predicted (measure a distance from front vehicle and maintain a safety distance between vehicles, see at least [0003]; controlling braking control device when detecting a stop of the front vehicle, see at least [0062]) *Examiner sets forth a stop of host vehicle is predicted when a stopping of the front vehicle is detected
Lee does not explicitly disclose:
the notification control section starts a notification of the traveling resumption information a predetermined time or more before the subject vehicle stops.
However, Uchida teaches:
the notification control section starts a notification of the traveling resumption information a predetermined time or more before the subject vehicle stops (passenger is informed that speed of vehicle will be decelerated in accordance with speed of a preceding vehicle, see at least [0043])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the forward vehicle stop and departure notification disclosed by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the deceleration notification taught by Uchida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “making the passenger feel more safe and comfortable with the autonomous control” (see [0063]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Szawarski.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above but Lee does not explicitly disclose:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by a driving assistance control in which the driver is obliged to monitor the periphery stops due to congestion, the notification control section requests a driver input for restarting the subject vehicle on a basis of a lapse of a predetermined time from the stop, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion, the notification control section cancels the request of the driver input
Additionally, Shokonji teaches:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by a driving assistance control stops due to congestion (determine traffic jam, see at least [0008]), the notification control section requests a driver input for restarting the subject vehicle on a basis of a lapse of a predetermined time from the stop (in a case where the stop time is longer than the follow-up start permission time, the ACC_ECU 11 may cancel the start up control and require the driver to step down on the accelerator pedal or make an operation such as turning on the automatic switch again, see at least [0034]), and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the autonomous driving level taught by Wang by adding the driver operation requirement taught by Shokonji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a follow-up start control device for a vehicle that makes it possible to enhance user-friendliness and versatility” (see [0007]).
However, Yoshida teaches
a driving assistance control in which the driver is obliged to monitor the periphery (mode A is a state of automatic driving not requiring gripping or forward monitoring of driver, see at least [0045])
autonomous traveling control (mode A is a state of automatic driving not requiring gripping or forward monitoring of driver, see at least [0045])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji by adding the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow vehicles to be autonomously controlled while following a preceding vehicle (see [0052]).
Furthermore, Szawarski teaches:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion, the notification control section cancels the request of the driver input (at level 5 full automation as defined by the SAE the vehicle can handle all tasks without any driver intervention)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “help to avoid a collision event or minimize the damage, impact, severity, etc. that occurs as a result of a collision event” (see [0046]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0188289 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, and Tobe teaches the elements above and Lee further discloses:
the automated driving function is capable of switching a control mode of the autonomous traveling control among a plurality of control modes (generate an autonomous system on/off command using user input device, see at least [0042]) including at least congestion limited control to be executed only when traveling in congestion (repeated stops and starts in traffic jam, autonomous driving apparatus to determine front vehicle departure notification based on timing, see at least [0004] and [0008]) and,
the control grasping section grasps the control mode of the autonomous traveling control executed by the automated driving function (user input device 110 generates autonomous system on/off command according to manipulation of user, see at least [0042]), and
Lee does not disclose:
area limited control to be executed only when traveling in a specific area
when the subject vehicle stops during traveling by the congestion limited control, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of the traveling by the congestion limited control, and
when the subject vehicle stops during traveling by the area limited control, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by manual driving
However, Shokonji teaches:
when the subject vehicle stops during traveling by the congestion limited control, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of the traveling by the congestion limited control (the ACC_ECU 11 in an autonomous mode my cause automatic start of own vehicle after a stop, see at least [0027] and [0032]; determining presence of traffic jam on the road, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the autonomous driving level taught by Wang by adding the traffic jam start control taught by Shokonji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a follow-up start control device for a vehicle that makes it possible to enhance user-friendliness and versatility” (see [0007]) for a multitude of road types.
Additionally, Oba teaches:
area limited control to be executed only when traveling in a specific area (road zones include an automatic driving zone or manual driving zone, see at least [0166])
when the subject vehicle stops during traveling by the area limited control, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by manual driving (when vehicle approaches a zone in which returning to manual is required, driver returns to manual driving, see at least [0237] and Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee, the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the driving zones taught by Oba with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to ensure safe driving” and “to make the driver start manual driving when the driver's level of alertness is high, which is when the driver is clearly in a conscious state” (see [0009]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Shokonji, Yoshida, Tobe, Szawarski, and further in view of Mimura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0144004 A1; hereinafter Mimura).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses:
The presentation control device (output device 130 outputs visual and audible information, see at least [0045]) according to claim 8, wherein:
Lee does not explicitly disclose:
the notification control section, when the subject vehicle stops, determines a reason for a stop of the subject vehicle based on at least one of control status information, vehicle speed information, and activation state of emergency avoidance control, and notifies the traveling resumption information with content corresponding to the reason for the stop
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by a driving assistance control in which the driver is obliged to monitor the periphery stops due to congestion, the notification control section requests a driver input for restarting the subject vehicle on a basis of a lapse of a predetermined time from the stop, and
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion, the notification control section cancels the request of the driver input.
Additionally, Shokonji teaches:
the notification control section, when the subject vehicle stops, determines a reason for a stop of the subject vehicle based on at least one of control status information, vehicle speed information, and activation state of emergency avoidance control, (when speed of vehicle falls to or below a stop determination vehicle speed, or intermittent stop and start is detected, ACC_ECU determines a traffic jam state, see at least [0038])
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by a driving assistance control in which the driver is obliged to monitor the periphery stops due to congestion (determine traffic jam, see at least [0008]), the notification control section requests a driver input for restarting the subject vehicle on a basis of a lapse of a predetermined time from the stop (in a case where the stop time is longer than the follow-up start permission time, the ACC_ECU 11 may cancel the start up control and require the driver to step down on the accelerator pedal or make an operation such as turning on the automatic switch again, see at least [0034])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the autonomous driving level taught by Wang by adding the driver operation requirement taught by Shokonji with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a follow-up start control device for a vehicle that makes it possible to enhance user-friendliness and versatility” (see [0007]).
However, Yoshida teaches:
autonomous traveling control, in which a driver of the subject vehicle is not obliged to monitor periphery (mode A is a state of automatic driving not requiring gripping or forward monitoring of driver, see at least [0045])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee and the notification of a continuation of a host vehicle in a traffic jam taught by Shokonji by adding the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow vehicles to be autonomously controlled while following a preceding vehicle (see [0052]).
Furthermore, Szawarski teaches:
when the subject vehicle that has been traveling by the autonomous traveling control stops due to congestion, the notification control section cancels the request of the driver input (at level 5 full automation as defined by the SAE the vehicle can handle all tasks without any driver intervention)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee, the driver operation requirement taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, and the deceleration limit taught by Tobe by adding the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “help to avoid a collision event or minimize the damage, impact, severity, etc. that occurs as a result of a collision event” (see [0046]).
Additionally, Mimura teaches:
notifies the traveling resumption information with content corresponding to the reason for the stop (Traffic Jam Pilot (TJP) indicator represents host vehicle driving assist in TJP mode, see at least [0075] and reference number 602-1 in Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autonomous departure control disclosed by Lee, the driver operation requirement taught by Shokonji, the autonomous driving (traffic jam pilot) mode without driver monitoring or gripping taught by Yoshida, the deceleration limit taught by Tobe, and the full automation and collision avoidance taught by Szawarski by adding the TJP indicator taught by Mimura with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to display to a driver that a TJP mode is being or can be executed (see [0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 2 and 6 are allowable for reciting “determine whether the elapsed time exceeds a predetermined time and whether the elapsed time exceeds a continuation time limit… the continuation time limit is set to be longer than the predetermined time… (ii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and does not exceed the predetermined time, resume traveling of the subject vehicle automatically while maintaining the autonomous traveling control without requiring input from the driver for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle; and (iii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and exceeds the predetermined time, terminate the autonomous traveling control and resume traveling of the subject vehicle on a basis of an input by the driver” in combination with the other elements of claims 2 and 6.
Shokonji discloses a follow start up controller that controls own vehicle to stop when a preceding vehicle stops and determining a stop time. The stop time is compared to a start permission time which is set in accordance with a road category. If the stop time is longer than the start permission time, the controller cancels the follow-up control and causes a transition to a normal control which requires the driver to step down on the accelerator or make an operation to turn the automatic switch on again. However, Shokonji does not disclose a driving where the driver of a subject vehicle is not obliged to monitor a periphery and a second (predetermined) time limit.
Wang teaches autonomous drive unit with one or more levels of autonomous control as defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers such that level 5 is a fully automatic driving without requiring input from a driver. However, Wang does not teach a second (predetermined) time limit and determining the control of a vehicle based on comparing the stop time to a continuation time limit and predetermined time limit.
Oba teaches control notification timing of a manual driving return request from automatic driving based on a state of the driver. However, Oba does not teach “determine whether the elapsed time exceeds a predetermined time and whether the elapsed time exceeds a continuation time limit… the continuation time limit is set to be longer than the predetermined time… (ii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and does not exceed the predetermined time, resume traveling of the subject vehicle automatically while maintaining the autonomous traveling control without requiring input from the driver for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle; and (iii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and exceeds the predetermined time, terminate the autonomous traveling control and resume traveling of the subject vehicle on a basis of an input by the driver.”
Zhao teaches automatically resuming movement of a vehicle when the driver attentiveness score exceeds a predetermined threshold following a predetermined amount of time and outputting a notification requesting driver input for initiating resumption of movement of the vehicle when the driver attentiveness score does not exceed the threshold after the predetermined amount of time. However, Zhao does not teach “determine whether the elapsed time exceeds a predetermined time and whether the elapsed time exceeds a continuation time limit… the continuation time limit is set to be longer than the predetermined time… (ii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and does not exceed the predetermined time, resume traveling of the subject vehicle automatically while maintaining the autonomous traveling control without requiring input from the driver for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle; and (iii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and exceeds the predetermined time, terminate the autonomous traveling control and resume traveling of the subject vehicle on a basis of an input by the driver.”
Taylor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0063652 A1; hereinafter Taylor) teaches a dynamically set threshold stop time each time vehicle comes to a stop wherein the threshold stop time is a duration of time beyond which the driver will perform physical action to resume the driving assist functionality. However, Taylor does not teach a second (predetermined) time limit and thus also fails to teach “determine whether the elapsed time exceeds a predetermined time and whether the elapsed time exceeds a continuation time limit… the continuation time limit is set to be longer than the predetermined time… (ii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and does not exceed the predetermined time, resume traveling of the subject vehicle automatically while maintaining the autonomous traveling control without requiring input from the driver for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle; and (iii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and exceeds the predetermined time, terminate the autonomous traveling control and resume traveling of the subject vehicle on a basis of an input by the driver.”
Therefore, the combination of Shokonji, Wang, Oba, Zhao, and Taylor fail to teach, in combination and as a whole, “determine whether the elapsed time exceeds a predetermined time and whether the elapsed time exceeds a continuation time limit… the continuation time limit is set to be longer than the predetermined time… (ii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and does not exceed the predetermined time, resume traveling of the subject vehicle automatically while maintaining the autonomous traveling control without requiring input from the driver for resuming the traveling of the subject vehicle; and (iii) when the elapsed time does not exceed the continuation time limit and exceeds the predetermined time, terminate the autonomous traveling control and resume traveling of the subject vehicle on a basis of an input by the driver” in combination with the other elements of claims 2 and 6.
Claims 3-5 are allowable because they are dependent on claim 2 and further define and limit the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 would be allowable for reciting “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control” in combination with the other elements of claims 8 and 13.
Lee discloses an autonomous driving control apparatus that stops a host vehicle and maintains a stop state when a stop of a front vehicle is detected. When the front vehicle departure is detected, a front vehicle departure notification is output. The apparatus also identifies whether a driver gaze is located within a front of the vehicle and if the gaze of the driver is not in the front, the notification is output. However, Lee does not disclose a driver not obliged to monitor periphery, an acceleration exceeding a notification threshold, a hands-on notification, and “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control.”
Shokonji teaches causing an automatic start of the own vehicle and notification equipment notifying a driver of the automatic start. However, Shokonji does not teach a driver not obliged to monitor periphery, an acceleration exceeding a notification threshold, a hands-on notification, and “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control.”
Yoshida teaches a state of automatic driving not requiring gripping or forward monitoring of a driver and outputting a prompt to grip the steering wheel when the vehicle is to be driven manually. However, Yoshida does not teach an acceleration exceeding a notification threshold and “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control.”
Tobe teaches a notification section performing a control to issue a switch request and issue a warning when a deceleration of the vehicle exceeds a deceleration limit value. However, Tobe does not teach “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control.”
Dieterle (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0158366 A1) teaches an automatic initiation of emergency stop in a vehicle in conjunction with a request to a driver to take over. However, Dieterle does not teach “when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control.”
Hahne et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0191003 A1; hereinafter Hahne) teaches that a vehicle can be authorized to autonomously continue driving again once a vehicle in front of driver’s vehicle has moved off.
However, it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Lee, Shokonji, Yoshida, Tobe, Dieterle, and Hahne to teach “when the subject vehicle stops by activation of automatic emergency braking, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating resumption of traveling by manual driving, and when the subject vehicle that has been traveling in congestion stops following a preceding vehicle, the notification control section notifies the traveling resumption information indicating the resumption of the traveling by the autonomous traveling control” of claim 14 in combination with the other elements of claims 8 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crego et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,590,969 B1) teaches event detection based on whether a deceleration of an autonomous vehicle is greater that a deceleration threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights