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 the amendments filed on 11/24/2025. Claims 1 has been amended and Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled. Claim 6 has been added. Claims 1 and 4 - 6 are presently pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 11/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 5 under 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include limitations from Claim 2 and 3.
Application has argued that Ohmura does not teach or suggest that the speed distribution area is determined on whether or not the target path is surrounded by inhibiting objects. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant.
Ohmura discloses,
that the speed distribution area is determined on whether or not the target path is surrounded by inhibiting objects (see at least [0064] In the case of the guardrail (line A2), the rate of change in the allowable upper limit Vlim with respect to the clearance X is determined larger than that in the case of the vehicle (line A1). In the case of the guardrail, the danger is easier to be predicted than that in the case of the vehicle, so that a larger rate of change (factor k) can be determined), and [0068] the speed distribution area may be determined based on various parameters. As the parameters, for example, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 and the object, the type of the object, the travelling direction of the vehicle 1, the travelling direction and the moving speed of the object, length of the object, the absolute speed of the vehicle 1 or the like may be considered.
Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Eshima fails to cure the deficiencies of Ohmura in a manner sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Ohmura for limitation “determine that the vehicle travels in the high possibility area during a time period from an entry time point to a satisfaction time point”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
Eshima teaches,
that the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit sets a vehicle speed based on a based upper limit vehicle speed and a predetermined vehicle speed based on the risk information [0031]. The risk information is information that indicates a risk related to a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian from the viewpoint of the structure of the parking lot [0027]. Eshima teaches, that the drive assist process shown in FIG. 3 is started again after a lapse of a predetermined period of time (for example, several milliseconds to several tens of milliseconds) [0048], defining the entry time point and satisfaction time point.
Eshima teaches,
when consecutive vacant parking spaces are present over a first predetermined section or longer along a direction in which the passage space extends on each of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among parking spaces that adjoin the passage space, the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit 101 sets a vehicle speed obtained by adding a predetermined vehicle speed to the base upper limit vehicle speed (hereinafter, referred to as added upper limit vehicle speed where appropriate) as an upper limit vehicle speed for the vehicle 10 on condition that the location of the vehicle 10 is other than the high risk points that are identified based on the risk information included in the area map, and [0032] On the other hand, when consecutive vacant parking spaces are not present over the first predetermined section or longer in the direction in which the passage space extends on at least any one of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among the parking spaces that adjoin the passage space (or when consecutive vacant parking spaces are present over the first predetermined section or longer along the direction in which the passage space extends on each of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among the parking spaces that adjoin the passage space but the location of the vehicle 10 is one of the high risk points), the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit 101 sets the base upper limit vehicle speed as an upper limit vehicle speed for the vehicle 10.
Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the cited prior art for Claim 4, combining Ohmura with Tashiro does not cure the prior deficiencies of Ohmura. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Any perceived deficiencies have been addressed above in this action. Therefore, applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
The rejections are maintained.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi Ohmura 20180370526 (“Ohmura”) in view of Kazuhito Eshima US20190146516 (“Eshima”).
As per Claim 1,
Ohmura discloses,
a sensor configured to detect an object that is present in a predetermined area including a left side area and a right side area with respect to a travel direction of a vehicle;(see at least [0006] the system being configured for carrying out a control for detecting an object external to the vehicle, [0073] The ECU 10 (object detection part) detects the object by processing the data acquired from exterior sensors including at least the car-mounted camera 21 (S11), and [0055] the speed distribution area 40 may not necessarily be determined all over around the object, and may be determined on at least one side of the object in the lateral direction
and a controller configured to execute a vehicle limit control for limiting a speed of the vehicle to an upper limit speed or less until the vehicle reaches a target space; ( see at least [0006] determining a speed distribution area extending at least in a lateral area of the object in the travelling direction of the vehicle and defining a distribution of an allowable upper limit of a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object in a travelling direction of the vehicle, [0076] ECU 10 (speed distribution area determining part) further functions to determine speed distribution areas 40A and 40B for all of the detected objects (specifically, the parked vehicle 3 and the pedestrian 6), respectively (S12), and [0077] at respective points on the route, the specified vehicle speed is calculated such that the relative speed with respect to the object has a value of the allowable upper limit Vlim which is smaller among the allowable upper limits of the plurality of the speed distribution areas,
divide an area of a target path that the vehicle follows until the vehicle reaches the target space into a high possibility area and a low possibility area, based on whether or not the area of the target path is surrounded by inhibiting objects that inhibit a moving object from entering the target path, (see at least Fig.2, Fig.4B, Fig.7, [0006] determining a speed distribution area extending at least in a lateral area of the object in the travelling direction of the vehicle and defining a distribution of an allowable upper limit of a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object in a travelling direction of the vehicle, [0016] the speed distribution area is determined also for a region from a lateral area to a forward area of the object such that the allowable upper limit is made lower as the lateral distance and the longitudinal distance from the object become smaller, and [0023] the size of the speed distribution area is determined depending on types of the object).
when the vehicle travels in the low possibility area, set the upper limit speed higher than the upper limit speed that is set when the vehicle travels in the high possibility area. (see at least [0008] In the vehicle control system of the present invention, preferably, the speed distribution area is set or determined such that the allowable upper limit is made lower as a lateral distance from the object becomes smaller, [ 0009] the allowable upper limit for the relative speed of the vehicle is limited according to the distance from the object, and when the vehicle passes the object in a condition where the vehicle is far from the object, a large relative speed is allowed, but when the vehicle passes the object in a condition where the vehicle and the object are close to each other, the vehicle speed is limited to make the relative speed lower, and [0022] the rate of change of the allowable upper limit with respect to the distance from the object is determined depending on types of the detected object. [0064] In the case of the guardrail, the danger is easier to be predicted than that in the case of the vehicle, so that a larger rate of change (factor k) can be determined, and [0068] the speed distribution area may be determined based on various parameters. As the parameters, for example, the relative speed of the vehicle 1 and the object, the type of the object, the travelling direction of the vehicle 1, the travelling direction and the moving speed of the object, length of the object, the absolute speed of the vehicle 1 or the like may be considered.)
determine that an area of the target path is surrounded by the inhibiting objects is the low possibility area; ( see at least [0006] detecting an object external to the vehicle, determining a speed distribution area extending at least in a lateral area of the object in the travelling direction of the vehicle and defining a distribution of an allowable upper limit of a relative speed of the vehicle with respect to the object in a travelling direction of the vehicle, [0060] FIG. 4A depicts a case where a guardrail 4 and a lane border line 5 are provided along the travelling lane 2. It may be considered that these objects extend in a longitudinal direction along the travelling lane 2, and are comprised only of a side surface (lateral surface), or of small objects being sequentially positioned in the longitudinal direction, and [0064] In the case of the guardrail, the danger is easier to be predicted than that in the case of the vehicle, so that a larger rate of change (factor k) can be determined).
determine that an area of the target path of which an object that is not the inhibiting object is present in at least one of a left side and a right side is the high possibility area ( see at least [0006] detecting an object external to the vehicle, [0059] Respective ones of FIGS. 4A, 4B and 4C show explanatory diagrams of the speed distribution areas in cases where the object is a guardrail or the like, a pedestrian and a traffic signal, and [0062] when the object (pedestrian 6) has a velocity component in the lateral direction perpendicular to the travelling direction of the vehicle 1 or when it is predicted that the object will have a velocity component in the lateral direction, the speed distribution area 40 is defined to extend toward the vehicle 1 along the travelling direction of the vehicle 1 and to extend also in the lateral direction (rightward in FIG. 4B) along the travelling direction of the object, and [0069] the object can include a vehicle, a pedestrian, a bicycle).
determine that the vehicle travels in the high possibility area during a time period from an entry time point to a satisfaction time point, ( see at least [0073] ECU 10 (object detection part) detects the object by processing the data acquired from exterior sensors including at least the car-mounted camera 21 (S11). Specifically, the ECU 10 detects the parked vehicle 3 and the pedestrian 6 as the objects by executing an image processing of the image data)
the entry time point is a time point when the vehicle enters the non-existence area from the area that is surrounded by the inhibiting objects, the satisfaction time point is a time point when a predetermined release condition is satisfied (see at least [0080] The route R1 is a straight travelling route. The route R1 is calculated when a straight travelling prioritized mode (or a shortest distance prioritized mode) is selected. The route R1 crosses the iso-relative speed lines d, c, c, d of the speed distribution area 40 A, and the iso-relative speed lines d, c, c, d of the speed distribution area 40 B respectively. Therefore, when the vehicle 1 travels on the route R1, the allowable upper limit of the relative speed in the travelling direction is changed on the route R1. Specifically, the allowable upper limit is once made lower and then made higher (the speed distribution area 40A), and made lower and then made higher again (the speed distribution area 40B), and [0083] On the other hand, the route R3 is a route which passes outside the iso-relative speed line d of the speed distribution areas 40A and 40B. The route R3 is calculated when a speed prioritized mode is selected, the mode being the one which is designed to suppress a vehicle speed reduction, and [0088] the process flow of FIG. 8 is repeatedly executed at every predetermined time (for example, 0.1 second), so that the calculated route and the specified speed on the route changes with time.)
Ohmura does not specifically disclose,
the high possibility area is an area where an entry possibility that the moving object enters the target path is high,
the low possibility area is an area where the entry possibility is low;
Eshima teaches,
the high possibility area is an area where an entry possibility that the moving object enters the target path is high,
the low possibility area is an area where the entry possibility is low; (See at least [0027] The risk information is information that indicates a risk related to a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian from the viewpoint of the structure of the parking lot. Specifically, the risk information is information that indicates a score commensurate with the risk of each point in the parking lot. The score indicates a relatively high value at a place at which it is predicted that traffic of vehicles and humans is relatively high. Examples of the place include places near pedestrian crossings in the parking lot, places near the entrance and exit of the parking lot, places near the entrance and exit of commercial facilities in the case where the parking lot and the commercial facilities are next to each other, and intersections of passage spaces in the parking lot. Hereinafter, points of which the score is a relatively high value are referred to as high risk points where appropriate).
Ohmura does not disclose,
determine that a non-existence area of the target path where no object exists either the left side or the right side is the low possibility area
Eshima teaches,
determine that a non-existence area of the target path where no object exists either the left side or the right side is the low possibility area; (see at least [0055] the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit 101 sets an added upper limit vehicle speed to an upper limit vehicle speed for the vehicle 10 when consecutive vacant parking spaces are present over the first predetermined section or longer in a direction in which a passage space in which the vehicle 10 is currently moving extends on each of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among parking spaces that adjoin the passage space and the location of the vehicle 10 is other than the high risk points).
Ohmura does not specifically disclose,
determine that the vehicle travels in the high possibility area during a time period from an entry time point to a satisfaction time point,
Eshima teaches,
determine that the vehicle travels in the high possibility area during a time period from an entry time point to a satisfaction time point, ( see at least [0027] The risk information is information that indicates a risk related to a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian from the viewpoint of the structure of the parking lot, and [0048] that the drive assist process shown in FIG. 3 is started again after a lapse of a predetermined period of time (for example, several milliseconds to several tens of milliseconds).
Thus, Ohmura discloses determining that a vehicle is in a high possibility area and Eshima teaches where no object is on either the left or right of the vehicle as a low possibility area (identifying low and high risk areas for collision).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Ohmura with the low risk determination taught by Eshima, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it is possible to relatively early recognize a pedestrian [0055] and to assist driving in consideration of pedestrian's running out from behind a parked vehicle [0008].
As per Claim 5,
Ohmura discloses,
wherein, the controller is configured to execute a steering control for controlling steered wheels of the vehicle such that the vehicle travels along the target path (see at least [0010] a speed and/or a steering direction of the vehicle is changed to have the relative speed of the vehicle in the speed distribution area restricted from exceeding the allowable upper limit, [0011] may alternatively be configured to change the travelling path of the vehicle by changing the steering direction so that the vehicle is passed an area with a larger allowable upper limit, or may even be configured to change both of the speed and the steering direction, and [0095] the speed and/or the steering direction of the vehicle 1 is changed to have the relative speed of the vehicle 1 in the speed distribution area 40 restricted from exceeding the allowable upper limit. In carrying out this avoidance control, control may be made to change (decelerate) the speed itself of the vehicle 1 as in the case of the route R1 in FIG. 7, or to change the travelling path of the vehicle by changing the steering direction so that the vehicle is passed an area with a larger allowable upper limit as in the case of the route R3, or even to change both of the speed and the steering direction as in the case of the route R2).
As per Claim 6
Ohmura does not disclose,
The speed limit control apparatus according to wherein, the controller is configured to set the upper limit speed higher when the vehicle is traveling in the non-existence area than when the vehicle is traveling the area that is surrounded by the inhibiting objects
Eshima teaches,
The speed limit control apparatus according to wherein, the controller is configured to set the upper limit speed higher when the vehicle is traveling in the non-existence area than when the vehicle is traveling the area that is surrounded by the inhibiting objects (see at least [0031] when consecutive vacant parking spaces are present over a first predetermined section or longer along a direction in which the passage space extends on each of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among parking spaces that adjoin the passage space, the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit 101 sets a vehicle speed obtained by adding a predetermined vehicle speed to the base upper limit vehicle speed (hereinafter, referred to as added upper limit vehicle speed where appropriate) as an upper limit vehicle speed for the vehicle 10 on condition that the location of the vehicle 10 is other than the high risk points that are identified based on the risk information included in the area map, and [0032] On the other hand, when consecutive vacant parking spaces are not present over the first predetermined section or longer in the direction in which the passage space extends on at least any one of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among the parking spaces that adjoin the passage space (or when consecutive vacant parking spaces are present over the first predetermined section or longer along the direction in which the passage space extends on each of the right and left sides of the vehicle 10 among the parking spaces that adjoin the passage space but the location of the vehicle 10 is one of the high risk points), the upper limit vehicle speed computing unit 101 sets the base upper limit vehicle speed as an upper limit vehicle speed for the vehicle 10.
Thus, Ohmura discloses determining that a vehicle is in a high possibility area and Eshima teaches where no object is in a low and high risk areas for collision.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Ohmura with the low risk determination taught by Eshima, with a reasonable expectation of success, determine whether to add a predetermined vehicle speed to a base upper limit vehicle speed [0033].
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmura in view of Eshima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Naoyuki Tashiro et. al. US20210354688A1 (“Tashiro”)
As per Claim 4,
Ohmura does not disclose,
the controller is configured to determine that the release condition is satisfied when a travel distance from the entry time point is equal to or longer than a predetermined distance.
Tashiro teaches,
the controller is configured to determine that the release condition is satisfied when a travel distance from the entry time point is equal to or longer than a predetermined distance ( see at least Fig. 7, [0063] In Step S603, the delivery route is calculated until a predetermined ending condition is satisfied. Here, the delivery route is calculated until at least one of the ending conditions such as a condition that the direction of the vehicle after leaving is perpendicular to the parking orientation of the parking frame 702, parallel to the aisle orientation, and the same direction as the direction of the vehicle at the parking start position 701, or a condition that the left vehicle arrives at a point away from the parking frame 702 by a predetermined distance Wt, and [0065] connectable route information means a route that the vehicle can move from the parking start position 701 to the delivery completion position 707 by the one-sided steering without interfering with an obstacle ).
Thus, Ohmura discloses executing a vehicle control limit until the vehicle reaches a target space and Tashiro teaches ending the control when a predetermined ending condition is satisfied.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Ohmura with the ending condition as taught by Eshima, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make automatic parking smoothly [0006].
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 ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668