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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/407,860 filed on 9/29/2025, in which
Claims 1-5 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claims 1-4 and adds new Claim 5.
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. JP2023-035282, filed on 3/8/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/9/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the drawing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings of 7/2/2025 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments to Claim 1 a new claim objection is made. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 3-5 and 8, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that "vehicle control apparatus" has structure, as known to the art, however, MPEP 2181 (I)(A) lists “apparatus” as a non-structural generic placeholder that may invoke a claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Further, "apparatus" can be interpreted as a means or mechanism and the claim could be read as "control means" or "control mechanism." Therefore, a "vehicle control apparatus" does not necessarily imply structure and could be interpreted as instructions, an algorithm, or a program for determining or controlling. Examiner maintains that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked and the claim interpretation set forth in the office action of 7/2/2025 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-11, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the method for “deceleration support control” is supported by the claim language and further by the specification, [pg. 9, para 0025, new para 0031], which explains that the control unit applies a deceleration support control value, and further details are supported by Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2020-111218. Further, Applicant argues that the determination and application of the “deceleration support control” is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Finally, Applicant argues that the specification, [pgs. 10-11, paras 0028-0029, new paras 0039-0040], describes the purpose and relative values of the support deceleration by providing different support decelerations and relative value, for example a first value is smaller than an original value, and does not require the details for determination, such as calculations or algorithms. Examiner agrees that the specification, [pg. 21, para 0098], briefly discusses using a powertrain or brake actuator to control deceleration. And further, that Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2020-111218 discusses, [pgs. 5-6, paras 0022-0031] executing a deceleration support control using a support amount calculation unit and surrounding conditions. JP2020-111218 does discuss, [pg. 5, para 0024], using the vehicle control unit to control the brake actuator engine output for achieving the target deceleration. However, the specification and JP2020-111218 do not discuss the calculation method. To clarify the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection, set forth in the office action of 7/2/2025, the application specification does not discuss the method for obtaining, or determining, the value that is set as the support deceleration for controlling deceleration, or realizing the deceleration support control. Although details of the determination may not be required, the claim is directed to obtaining the support deceleration value such that certain vehicle behavior is achieved under specific surrounding conditions and the specification does not discuss, even at a high level, how this is accomplished. The specification, [pg. 12, para 0046], discusses multiplying by a gain to modify deceleration and, [pg. 23, para 0110], obtaining a deceleration value that maintains a jerk, where the jerk is obtained based on stored acceleration and jerk values. However, the specification does not discuss, for example, if the deceleration values are stored or calculated such as stored as discrete values obtained using a lookup table, continuous values calculated using mathematical equations, or learned values using an algorithm. Therefore, it is unclear how the deceleration values are obtained and the rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), set forth in the office action of 7/2/2025, is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 3-5 and 11, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in the office action of 7/2/2025 are withdrawn. However, in light of the addition of Claim 5 a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is made. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg, filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the referenced prior art, Steffen, does not teach or suggest intentional and automatic termination of adaptive cruise control (ACC) and instead teaches intervention based on a safety distance and no driver interaction with the pedals, which does not end ACC. Applicant further argues that Steffen does not teach or suggest greater suppression of a support deceleration for a driver terminated ACC than an automatic terminated ACC. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 1 includes any means for a driver to end ACC, which can include by intervening and manually controlling acceleration or deceleration. Further, deceleration support can be suppressed more if a driver ends ACC, than when a system automatically ends ACC, such as during automatic termination due to a safety situation where emergency, automatic braking is required.
Although Steffen does not explicitly state a termination of ACC, Steffen does disclose a driver intervention or system intervention of the ACC system and, [pg. 4], a driver braking mode which the system uses to determine driver pedal movement and deceleration amount as input variables for setting the braking pressure. As referenced below, FIG. 2 shows scenarios for driver intervention and system intervention. Examiner acknowledges that Steffen does discuss recognizing a safety distance and driver interaction with the pedals, however Steffen also discusses using these inputs to determine if the driver is intervening with ACC to subsequently determine the deceleration amount, as described by the driver braking mode. Further, the system avoids hard braking when driver is already braking. In other words, the system decelerates less hard when the driver is already braking, than when driver is not already braking, or intervening with ACC. Finally, Steffen also discusses, [pg. 3], that the system can brake harder without driver intervention because the system response time to measured inputs and required outputs is faster and more precise, which occurs in scenarios such as safety braking when the system intervenes before the driver.
In summary, any driver intervention is a driver termination of ACC because the vehicle needs to switch from an automatic control to a manual control. The art cites using less hard braking support when the driver is already braking, or intervening. And finally that the system intervenes, to end ACC, only in emergency situations which require harder, faster braking. Therefore, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and provides an updated rejection in view of the amendments to Claims 1-4 and new Claim 5.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 4): "control .
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 limitations are:
"vehicle control apparatus (is) configured to" in Claims 1 (line 1), 3 (line 2), and 4 (line 2).
Corresponding structure is found in the specification. The specification defines reference character 10 as vehicle control apparatus [pg. 2, para 0008] and vehicle control device [pg. 5, para 0011]. FIG. 1, reference character 10, further shows multiple vehicle components (camera, radar, sensors, switches, actuators, and a control unit), forming a control system. The vehicle control apparatus will be read as a vehicle control system with sensors, actuators, at least one switch, and a vehicle control unit comprising a processor, memory, and interface.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites “deceleration support control” and Claims 1-4 recite "support deceleration." .
Claim 5 is rejected by dependency on Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 (line 2) recites the limitation "the driver.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka, PG Pub US-2020/0010087-A1 (herein "Akatsuka"), in view of Ikezawa et al., PG Pub US-2020/0223410-A1 (herein "Ikezawa"), further in view of Sato, Patent No. US-10,996,672-B2 (herein "Sato"), and further in view of Steffen, WO-2004/005092-A1 (herein "Steffen").
Regarding Claim 1, Akatsuka discloses: (currently amended): A vehicle control apparatus configured toexecute a following travel control and a deceleration support control, wherein said following control is an Adaptive Cruise Control, said following travel control is configured to control for controlling an acceleration-deceleration state of a host vehicle y following a preceding vehicle or . See [Akatsuka, pg. 1, para 0002], which describes a vehicle control apparatus for controlling the vehicle travelling state using the vehicle driving and brake forces, "A vehicle control apparatus has been conventionally known, the vehicle control apparatus performing, based on a surrounding situation of a vehicle, a driving operation state of the vehicle, a traveling state of the vehicle, and so on, a driving force control to automatically apply driving force on the vehicle and a braking force control to automatically apply braking force on the vehicle. Controls as mentioned above are performed as a driving support control and an automatic driving control." See [Akatsuka, pg. 8, para 0100], which explains the adaptive cruise control, "Referring back to FIG. 1, the AC control switch 17 is arranged in the vicinity of a driver's seat and is operated by the driver. The AC control switch 17 is a switch to be pressed when initiating execution of the adaptive cruise control (hereinafter, referred to as an "AC control"). Here, the AC control is a known control to make the vehicle travel at a constant speed of a set speed set in advance when there is no preceding vehicle in front of the vehicle and when there exists a preceding vehicle, to accelerate or decelerate the vehicle so as to trail the preceding vehicle, maintaining a set inter-vehicular distance set in advance."
Akatsuka does not disclose: […] said deceleration support control is a control for decelerating said host vehicle
However, Ikezawa teaches: […] said deceleration support control is a control for decelerating said host vehicle See [Ikezawa, pg. 1, para 0006], which explains that the apparatus can provide deceleration support, “The above object of embodiments of the present disclosure can be achieved by a driving assistance apparatus configured to execute deceleration assistance of decelerating a host vehicle independently of an operation by a driver, […] controller programmed to reduce a deceleration assistance amount associated with the deceleration assistance when execution of the deceleration assistance is released […].” See also [Ikezawa, pg. 2, para 0019], which details the execution conditions, “Now, an explanation will be given to conditions that allow the deceleration assistance control to be executed. In the embodiment, the deceleration assistance control may be executed when the following five conditions are satisfied: (i) a deceleration target associated with the deceleration assistance control is recognized, (ii) a distance between the vehicle 1 and the recognized deceleration target ( or time to collision (TTC)) is less than or equal to a predetermined distance ( or a predetermined time), (iii) the driver releases an accelerator pedal, (iv) the driver releases a brake pedal, and (v) a speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than or equal to a target speed, which is determined by the recognized deceleration target.” Finally see [Ikezawa, pg. 2, para 0025], which explains the determination device identifies if the conditions are met, “The determination device 14 is configured to determine whether or not the aforementioned five conditions that allow the deceleration assistance control to be executed are satisfied,” and [Ikezawa, pg. 2, para 0028], which explains that the deceleration support is then calculated using the arithmetic device, “The assistance amount arithmetic device 15 is configured to arithmetically operate a deceleration assistance amount associated with the deceleration assistance control (corresponding to deceleration caused by the deceleration assistance control) when the deceleration assistance control is executed.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Akatsuka with Ikezawa to define a deceleration support such that the vehicle decelerates accordingly when certain conditions are met. Doing so allows the deceleration support to adapt to a changing environment where the cruise conditions change, such as a preceding vehicle changing lanes, and allow for a deceleration support that reduces the driver's discomfort [Ikezawa, pg. 1, para 0004].
Akatsuka does not disclose: […] determine whether said following travel control ends according to a driver's intention or said following travel control automatically ends regardless of the driver's intention, when said execution condition is satisfied before a predetermined time elapses from an end time point at which said following travel control ends.
However, Sato teaches: […] determine whether said following travel control ends according to a driver's intention or said following travel control automatically ends regardless of the driver's intention, when said execution condition is satisfied before a predetermined time elapses from an end time point at which said following travel control ends. See [Sato, col 10, lines 19-29], which explains that when the brake pedal is depressed ACC gets overridden, "In a case of the deceleration request, an ESP hydraulic command value by a brake pedal depression of a driver is compared with the override threshold Pe (step 107). i) In a case in which ESP hydraulic command value P>Pe, the brake pedal override is determined, and immediately the override is performed to transition to a manual drive by an accelerator pedal operation and a brake pedal operation of a driver. ii) In a case in which ESP hydraulic command value P≤Pe, the override is not performed, and the ACC drive continues." See also [Sato, col 10, lines 33-37], which explains that ACC automatically ends after a predetermined time, “After takeover notification (LKA failure or acc stop before brake pedal, FIG. 4) auto ends after predetermined time "In a case in which the ACC drive continues, a count of an elapse time from a point where the ACC takeover notification is outputted in the step 102 continues (step 108), and at a point where a predetermined time (for example, 4 seconds) elapses, the ACC fallback control is started (step 110)." Finally see [Sato, col 10, lines 39-51], which explains that an ACC fallback control is used to transition between ACC and driver operation, "An acceleration/deceleration command value (vehicle speed command) to be input to the engine controller 32 is gradually lowered to 0 km/his with a predetermined inclination, and when the ACC fallback control lowering a deceleration command value to be input to the ESP controller 33 until 0 m/s2 with a predetermined inclination ends, the ACC function is stopped and the operation takeover to a driver is performed (step 111) to completely transition to a manual drive by an accelerator pedal operation and a brake pedal operation of a driver (step 112)."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Akatsuka with Sato to add identifying if the driver ends ACC or the system ends ACC after a predetermined time. Doing so provides the system the capability to avoid rapid acceleration or deceleration, such as an instance of vehicle failure, where the system takes over automatically [Sato, col 1, lines 44-51] or when the driver takes over in a panic, and could excessively brake, and provide smooth operation takeover from ACC to the driver [Sato, cols 10-11, lines 65-67 and 1-7],
Akatsuka does not disclose: […] and , wherein suppression of said deceleration support control is greater when said following travel control ends according to said driver's intention than when said following travel control automatically ends.
However, Steffen teaches: […] and , wherein suppression of said deceleration support control is greater when said following travel control ends according to said driver's intention than when said following travel control automatically ends. See [Steffen, pg. 1], which explains that the vehicle uses a cruise control system, "Preferably, the data of the current driving situation are determined by an ICC system or ACC system.” See also [Steffen, pgs. 1-2], which explains that the system detects parameters, including driver behavior, to understand the vehicle situation, "By taking into account all detected parameters, which allow a driver observation (early human Reaction) and environmental observation (dynamics of the Traffic driving ahead), critical traffic situations, in particular emergency braking situations in the following traffic, can be detected better and faster and corresponding measures can be initiated quickly." See also [Steffen, pg. 2], which further explains how driver behavior is measured using the gas pedal or brake pedal and the system intervention is only provided when the driver does not actuate the pedals, "The term "vehicle acceleration" is to be interpreted broadly. In the mathematical sense, the term "acceleration" includes in particular negative values, i.e. driving states, which are referred to as "deceleration". […]. According to the invention, it is provided that the driver's wish of a vehicle acceleration is then considered to be recognized when the driver does not actively actuate the accelerator pedal, in particular if a detected accelerator pedal travel is zero or if a determined accelerator pedal speed and/or accelerator pedal force is less than or equal to zero. The detection of the driver's desire is preferably carried out via one automatic state machine […]. […] the driver's wish of a vehicle deceleration is then considered to be recognized when the driver does not actuate the brake pedal, in particular if the brake pedal travel is zero or a determined brake pedal speed and/or brake pedal force is less than or equal to zero." See also [Steffen, pg. 3], which explains that the system monitors the hazard conditions, distance, and jerk to identify how much the vehicle can be braked ,"The determination and evaluation device has a device for outputting a correction signal for influencing a brake assistant system or a brake pedal characteristic curve. […]. The hazard potential is a function which preferably has at least the variables "distance", " which Relative speed "and the" system response times […]” are weighted in each case relative to a relevant preceding vehicle in such a way that a measure of a potential (accident) risk is available to the overall system as an evaluation scale. Further additional information such as, for example, the "required braking distance", "the jerk" as a derivative of the vehicle deceleration, the own vehicle deceleration […]. […] if the danger potential is very large, then the function and effect of the braking assistant can be improved with this measure. The vehicle can be braked earlier and/or more strongly." Finally see [Steffen, pg. 5], which explains that when the driver is manually operating the vehicle, through actuating the gas pedal, and a safety distance condition requiring deceleration is recognized, the system recognizes the driver is in control and trying to accelerate and intervenes with autonomous braking only enough to avoid hard braking, "Gas positions are stored and in one State detection evaluates whether the driver is active gas (s > 0 and v > = 0 or s (new) > s (old)) or the accelerator pedal (accelerator pedal) keeps approximately constant (v ˜ = 0) or whether it releases the accelerator pedal (v < = 0 or s (new) < s (old)). It has been found that the Tolerance ranges of the individual states are dependent on the driver behavior and are accordingly to be adapted according to the personal specifications. It is only important that the desire of the "Active gas" must be quickly recognized and converted in order to avoid a feeling of "hard braking". Otherwise, sufficient acceptance of the Assistance function cannot be ensured by the driver. These are essentially the basic conditions which result in an "autonomous" intervention in the brake system.” And [Steffen, translated FIG. 2, below], which shows that in scenarios where the driver recognizes the hazard situation and intervenes, the system does not intervene.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated FIG. 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Akatsuka with Steffen to use less brake support when the driver is controlling the vehicle, ending or preventing any system control. Doing so allows the system to manage the hazard conditions and jerk in a way that the driver can tolerate [Steffen, pg. 5] while still slowing down the vehicle to mitigate the safety situation or not add extra braking force when the driver is already braking [Steffen, FIG. 2].
Regarding Claim 4, Akatsuka as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Akatsuka further discloses: (currently amended): […] wherein said vehicle control apparatus is configured to obtain said support deceleration deceleration state in which said host vehicle decelerates. See again [Akatsuka, pg. 8, para 0100], which explains the vehicle adaptive cruise control, including the condition where there is no preceding vehicle and the vehicle is travelling at a set speed. See [Akatsuka, pg. 9, para 0109], which explains that the net force on the vehicle determines the vehicle state as accelerating, decelerating, or a constant speed, "In a case when a brake pedal operation amount with a non-zero value is detected in the midst of the controlled driving force and the controlled braking force are simultaneously being applied on the vehicle by the vehicle control, the operation braking force is further applied on the vehicle. When defining a sum of the controlled driving force, the controlled braking force, and the operation braking force as a "first longitudinal force", a net force acting on the vehicle becomes a sum of the first longitudinal force and external force (gradient force, resistance force, and the like). Therefore, which state the vehicle is in at the current point in time among an accelerating state, a decelerating state, and a constant speed state depends on a sign of this net force. That is, the vehicle is in the accelerating state when the net force acting on the vehicle has a positive value, the vehicle is in the decelerating state when the net force acting on the vehicle has a negative value, and the vehicle is in the constant speed state when the net force acting on the vehicle has a zero value." See also [Akatsuka, pg. 9, para 0110], which explains that the jerk is a differential value of the net force, where the external force is typically zero and the differential force is the longitudinal force provided by the controlled driving or braking force or the operational braking force from the driver, "Jerk of the vehicle may be calculated as a time differential value (hereinafter, also simply referred to as a "differential value") of the net force acting on the vehicle, while the external force generally does not change at a rapid pace. Therefore, it can be considered that a differential value of the external force has a zero value in most cases. Hence, the jerk of the vehicle can be calculated as a differential value of the first longitudinal force. Accordingly, when the differential value of the first longitudinal force changes due to a change in at least one of the forces constituting the first longitudinal force, that is, the controlled driving force, the controlled braking force, and the operation braking force, an acceleration feeling or a deceleration feeling of the vehicle changes." Finally see [Akatsuka, pg. 9] "Case A: Case Where the Vehicle Starts by the AC Control" and [Akatsuka, pgs. 11-12, para 0124], which explains that in Case A when the brake is held at its position and the jerk is already positive, the controlled braking force is set to zero or negative to match the current jerk, "[…] at a "timing at which values of the flags have changed from the BP decrease flag=1 to the BP zero flag= 1 (Hereinafter, this timing will be also referred to as a "timing III".)", […]. And when the controlled braking force at the immediately previous timing is zero, the first embodiment apparatus sets the controlled braking force as zero. On the other hand, at the timing III, when a differential value of the controlled braking force at the timing PP1 is zero or negative, the first embodiment apparatus executes the braking force control in such a manner that a differential value of the controlled braking force matches with a differential value of the controlled braking force at the immediately previous timing."
Regarding Claim 5, Akatsuka as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Akatsuka does not disclose: (new): […] wherein said execution condition is satisfied at least when the driver releases an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal.
However, Ikezawa teaches: (new): […] wherein said execution condition is satisfied at least when the driver releases an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal. See [Ikezawa, pg. 2, para 0019], which lists five conditions for satisfying execution of deceleration assistance, including the driver releases an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal, “Now, an explanation will be given to conditions that allow the deceleration assistance control to be executed. In the embodiment, the deceleration assistance control may be executed when the following five conditions are satisfied: (i) a deceleration target associated with the deceleration assistance control is recognized, (ii) a distance between the vehicle 1 and the recognized deceleration target (or time to collision (TTC)) is less than or equal to a predetermined distance (or a predetermined time), (iii) the driver releases an accelerator pedal, (iv) the driver releases a brake pedal, and (v) a speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than or equal to a target speed, which is determined by the recognized deceleration target.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Akatsuka with Ikezawa to include the driver releasing the brake and accelerator pedals as part of the execution condition. Doing so allows the system to identify the vehicle state [Ikezawa, pg. 1, para 0018] in a driving environment that is constantly changing, which is important because improper execution of the deceleration control could result in driver discomfort [Ikezawa, pg. 1, para 0004].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka, in view of Ikezawa, Sato, and Steffen, further in view of Isogai et al., PG Pub US-2008/0288150-A1 (herein "Isogai").
Regarding Claim 2, Akatsuka as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Akatsuka does not disclose: (currently amended): […] wherein is less when said following travel control ends according to said driver's intention and an acceleration- deceleration state at said end time point is a constant speed state in which said host vehicle travels at a constant speed without accelerating or decelerating than when said following travel control automatically ends.
However, Isogai teaches: (currently amended): […] wherein is less when said following travel control ends according to said driver's intention and an acceleration- deceleration state at said end time point is a constant speed state in which said host vehicle travels at a constant speed without accelerating or decelerating than when said following travel control automatically ends. See [Isogai, pg. 2, paras 0025 and 0028-0029] which explains the vehicle is equipped with pre-crash safety control, cruise control and adaptive cruise control, “[0025] The drive support ECU 1, which operates as a control center, and includes a plurality of drive support applications for performing ACC (adaptive cruise control), PCS (precrash safety) control, BA (brake assist) control, etc., is connected with a radar sensor 11, an alarm buzzer 13, a cruise control switch 15, a target following-distance setting switch 17. […] [0028] From the cruise control switch 15 to the drive support ECU 1, there are transmitted a set signal to start the cruise control, a cancellation signal to cancel the cruise control, an acceleration signal to increase a set vehicle speed, a coast signal to decrease the set vehicle speed, etc. [0029] The target following-distance setting switch 17 is a switch used for the driver to set the time needed for the instant vehicle to travel a target following-distance, or a target following time. This target following time is transmitted to the drive support ECU 1.” See also [Isogai, pg. 3, para 0042], which explains the acceleration/deceleration control is determined based on driver operator intervention, "To this drive support ECU 1, the driver-operated acceleration demand, and each override flag are transmitted from the acceleration/deceleration ECU 3. The drive support ECU 1 computes the target acceleration etc. used as control command values in each application on the basis of the driver operated acceleration demand etc. received from the acceleration/deceleration ECU 3, and transmits the target acceleration, MAX Jerk, Min Jerk, execution request flag, etc. to the acceleration/deceleration ECU 3." Finally see [Isogai, pg. 3, paras 0051-0054], which explains that in a scenario where a crash object is detected and the driver steps on the brake, the system determines if the braking is sufficient and provides the required support when the braking is insufficient, while keeping within the maximum and minimum jerk requirements, "[0051] At step S230, the drive support ECU 1 determines whether or not the driver-operate acceleration by the brake is smaller than a predetermined threshold value α, that is, whether or not the braking is insufficient. [0052] If the determination result at step S230 is affirmative, since the brake assist control is necessary, the operation proceeds to step S240 where the execution request flag is turned on, and the target acceleration is set to the driver operated acceleration demand multiplied by a predetermined value β" [0053] On the other hand, if the determination result at step S230 is negative, since the brake assist control is not necessary, the operation proceeds to step S250 where the execution request flag is turned off, and the target acceleration is set to 0. [0054] At step S260, the drive support ECU 1 transmit the execution request flag, target acceleration, Max Jerk, and Min Jerk to the acceleration/deceleration ECU 3, and then this operation is terminated."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Akatsuka with Isogai to keep the jerk within a threshold. Doing so allows the brake assist to coordinate the driver operations [Isogai, pg. 3, para 0042] and the vehicle specification [Isogai, pg. 3, para 0056], which further provides versatility for the apparatus to work in any vehicle specification [Isogai, pg. 1 , 0008].
Regarding Claim 3, Akatsuka as modified discloses the limitations of Claim 2.
Akatsuka further discloses: (currently amended): […] wherein said vehicle control apparatus is configured to obtain said support deceleration less when said following travel control ends according to said driver's intention and said acceleration-deceleration state at said end time point is said constant speed state than when said following travel control automatically ends. See again [Akatsuka, pg. 8, para 0100], which explains the vehicle adaptive cruise control, including the condition where there is no preceding vehicle and the vehicle is travelling at a set speed. See [Akatsuka, pg. 9, para 0109], which explains that the net force on the vehicle determines the vehicle state as accelerating, decelerating, or a constant speed and [Akatsuka, pg. 9, para 0110], which explains that the jerk is a differential value of the net force, where the external force is typically zero and the differential force is the longitudinal force provided by the controlled driving or braking force or the operational braking force from the driver. Finally see [Akatsuka, pg. 9] "Case A: Case Where the Vehicle Starts by the AC Control" and [Akatsuka, pg. 11, para 0123], which explains that in Case A when the brake is initially depressed and the controlled braking force was already active, the controlled braking force is set to create less jerk, "At following two timings, that is, at a "timing at which a value of the BP increase flag has become 1 for the first time (That is, a timing at which the brake pedal operation has been initiated by the driver for the first time. […] when a differential value of the controlled braking force is positive at a timing (period) immediately before the abovementioned timings (i.e., at a timing immediately before either the timing I or the timing II), the first embodiment apparatus executes the braking force control as follows. […] when the controlled braking force at the immediately previous timing is negative (i.e., not zero), the first embodiment apparatus executes the braking force control in such a manner that a differential value of the controlled braking force becomes a value smaller than a differential value of the controlled braking force at the immediately previous timing."
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 ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664