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 amendment filed 12/23/2025. Claims 1-6 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/31/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0001920) in view of Tsuji et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0391332).
Regarding claim 1 and similarly with respect to claims 5 and 6
Katayama discloses “A vehicle driving assistance apparatus, comprising an electronic control unit which is configured to execute at least one of a vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control and an inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control,” (See Katayama [0085] disclosing performing inter-vehicle distance control and speed control.).
Katayama discloses “the vehicle moving speed control corresponding to a control of autonomously moving an own vehicle while alternately increasing and decreasing a vehicle moving speed of the own vehicle within a set vehicle moving speed range, and the inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control corresponding to a control of autonomously moving the own vehicle while alternately increasing and decreasing an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and another vehicle around the own vehicle within a set inter-vehicle distance range or while alternately increasing and decreasing a period of time required for the own vehicle to move the inter-vehicle distance within a set period-of-time range,” (See Katayama [0085] disclosing performing inter-vehicle distance control and speed control with an automatic traveling controller that sets the preceding vehicle as the tracking target, & operates the traveling drive force output apparatus and the brake apparatus so that a distance between vehicles with respect to the tracking target becomes a target distance between vehicles.).
Katayama discloses “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: while executing the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control, set the set vehicle moving speed range such that the set vehicle moving speed range set when a control range change condition is satisfied, is narrower than the set vehicle moving speed range set when the control range change condition is unsatisfied, period-of-time range such that the set inter-vehicle distance range or the set period-of-time range set when the control range change condition is satisfied, is narrower than the set inter-vehicle distance range or the set period-of-time range set when the control range change condition is unsatisfied.” (See Katayama Fig. 13, Char. ST34 “No” and [0105] disclosing performing inter-vehicle distance or speed control with a vehicle speed setter that may automatically increase the set speed (higher range) when both of a preceding and subsequent (rear) vehicle are recognized. When the condition is not satisfied the process may proceed to ST36 “YES” in which a normal track mode is set, where the speed setter does not automatically set a speed by adding a predetermined value (narrower speed setting).).
Katayama discloses all the elements of claim 1 except “a following vehicle detection device… is malfunctioning;” (See Katayama Fig. 13, Char. ST34 “No” and [0105] disclosing determining if there is a failure to detect a subsequent vehicle, however not necessarily a failure of the device).
Tsuji discloses “a following vehicle detection device… is malfunctioning;” (See Tsuji [0079] disclosing detecting an abnormality has occurred in a host vehicle on the basis of a malfunction of an external detector, and the vehicle may transition from a mode D (first driving mode) to a mode F where an inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is set to a target inter-vehicle distance D2 which shorter than the target inter-vehicle distance D1 (first driving mode), see Tsuji [0057].).
Katayama and Tsuji are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. 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 Katayama to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji to include compensating for a senor malfunction by adapting an inter-vehicle distance control. Doing so provides a known method in the art for adapting an inter-vehicle distance, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success as doing so advantageously provides vehicle control capable of allowing a host vehicle to travel in a more appropriate state even in a period in which a driving mode is switched, see Tsuji [0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to P. 9-12 of remarks filed with respect to claims 1 and 5-6
Katayama discloses “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: while executing the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control, set the set vehicle moving speed range such that the set vehicle moving speed range set when a control range change condition is satisfied, is narrower than the set vehicle moving speed range set when the control range change condition is unsatisfied, ” (See Katayama Fig. 13, Char. ST34 “No” and [0105] disclosing performing inter-vehicle distance or speed control with a vehicle speed setter that may automatically increase the set speed (higher range) when both of a preceding and subsequent (rear) vehicle are recognized. When the condition is not satisfied the process may proceed to ST36 “YES” in which a normal track mode is set, where the speed setter does not automatically set a speed by adding a predetermined value (narrower speed setting).).
Tsuji discloses “a following vehicle detection device… is malfunctioning;” (See Tsuji [0079] disclosing detecting an abnormality has occurred in a host vehicle on the basis of a malfunction of an external detector, and the vehicle may transition from a mode D (first driving mode) to a mode F where an inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is set to a target inter-vehicle distance D2 which shorter than the target inter-vehicle distance D1 (first driving mode), see Tsuji [0057].).
See Katayama [0085]-[0089], [0104]-[0105], & [0140]-[0145] disclosing adaptive cruise control with a normal tracking mode, and a first/second platooning mode. Katayama [0141]-[0142] discloses that the first and second platooning modes are conditional, including a determination if a platooning condition may be recognized on the basis of forward information from an external recognition apparatus, see Katayama [0062].
When the condition for activating the platooning modes is unable to be recognized, Katayama [0140]-[0144] disclosing setting a control mode of the vehicle as the normal tracking mode. In the normal tracking mode the speed range of the ACC is implicitly narrower than in the platooning modes, see Katayama [0105]. That is, when a platooning condition can not be recognized on the basis of information from an external recognition apparatus, the speed range for performing ACC is implicitly narrower.
Tsuji [0057] & [0079] further teaches the concept of compensating for the failure of an external detection device, of an adaptive cruise control system, by adapting the control of the ACC system to include a narrow range. That is, when “a following vehicle detection device… is malfunctioning;”, the features of an adaptive cruise control may be modified to incorporate a relatively narrower control range relative to alternative control modes.
Thus, Katayama in view of Tsuji discloses at least one of speed or distance control of vehicle, including modification of controls to a relatively narrower range of the speed or distance control when a sensor failure occurs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are 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:
Regarding claim 2
The recitation “and wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: when a moving mode change condition becomes satisfied while executing the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control, stop executing the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control and execute the vehicle moving speed maintaining control, the moving mode change condition corresponding to a condition that (i) the following vehicle detection device normally functions, (ii) the following vehicle is detected, and (iii) a distance between the detected following vehicle and the own vehicle is equal to or smaller than a predetermined distance, or a period of time required for the detected following vehicle to move the distance between the detected following vehicle and the own vehicle, is equal to or smaller than a predetermined period of time; and when the moving mode change condition becomes satisfied while executing the inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control, stop executing the inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control and execute the inter-vehicle distance maintaining control.” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art Katayama et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0001920). The limitations specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to modifying either the speed control or the inter-vehicle distance control to a maintenance control on the basis of the claimed moving mode change condition. For example, Katayama modified in view of Tsuji discloses determining if the following vehicle sensor is functioning properly, a following vehicle is detected, and a distance between the following vehicle and the host vehicle is equal to a threshold for modifying the control ranges of the speed control and the inter-vehicle distance control however specifying a maintenance of the speed or distance in view of the claimed criteria is neither reasonably disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claim is therefore allowable.
Regarding claim 3
The recitation “the first driving mode corresponds to a mode of moving the own vehicle by activating both of an internal combustion engine and an electric motor or by activating the internal combustion engine only to apply a power to the own vehicle, the second driving mode corresponds to a mode of moving the own vehicle by activating the electric motor only to apply the power to the own vehicle, the set vehicle moving speed range set when the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control is executed at the second driving mode, is narrower than the set vehicle moving speed range set when the vehicle moving speed increasing/decreasing control is executed at the first driving mode, the set inter-vehicle distance range set when the inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control is executed at the second driving mode, is narrower than the set inter-vehicle distance range set when the inter-vehicle distance increasing/decreasing control is executed at the first driving mode,” overcomes the art of record rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art Katayama et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0001920). The limitations specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to setting either the speed control or the inter-vehicle distance control ranges on the basis of a mode of operation corresponding to activating an internal combustion engine or an electric motor. For example, Katayama [0057] discloses the vehicle may be an ICE vehicle or have an electric drive source, however specifying the mode of operation of the vehicle as either/or for adapting the range of the speed control or inter-vehicle distance control is neither disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claim is therefore allowable.
Claim 4 is objected to on the basis of dependency of claim 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656