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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/02/2025, in which claims 1 and 4-7 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the title to overcome the objection to the title. Accordingly, the objection to the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the remarks that that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A Prong 2. Applicant specifically argues on page 9 of the remarks that the claims recite “a practical application of changing vehicle acceleration request to avoid unnecessary use of friction brakes and thus, extend the lifetime of the friction brakes.” Applicant additionally argues on page 9 of the remarks that the claims are amended to “positively recite controlling of the vehicle actuators.”
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are patent eligible. Regarding applicant’s arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states that “an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.” Additionally, merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea does not qualify as integrating the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claims do not amount to “significantly more” and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the claims are amended to positively recite controlling of the vehicle actuators, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims recite “generate an instruction value for an action request to control an actuator of the vehicle.” However, this limitation recites generating an instruction value, which does not positively recite controlling of the vehicle actuators. For example, “generating an instruction value” is merely generating instructions and signal transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The examiner respectfully recommends amending the claims to add the limitation “and control an actuator of the vehicle.”
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites a vehicle control device for changing a requested acceleration. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device comprising a processor that is configured to
receive a requested acceleration as one of motion requests from application software that realizes a driver assistance function of a vehicle,
in response to the received requested acceleration, generate an instruction value for an action request to control an actuator of the vehicle,
determine whether a specified condition that is set in advance is satisfied under a condition of indicating that an inter-vehicle distance from the vehicle to a preceding vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle is shorter than a stipulated distance,
and output a change signal to the application software to reduce an amount of the requested acceleration such that the inter-vehicle distance is longer, under a condition that the specified condition is satisfied,
wherein the specified condition includes a requirement that an actual acceleration of the vehicle is a negative value and an absolute value of the actual acceleration is greater than a stipulated acceleration set in advance,
wherein the stipulated acceleration is based on a maximum deceleration provided by a braking force of a device other than a friction brake.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, the “determine whether a specified condition that is set in advance is satisfied…” step includes a human operator observing whether the distance to a preceding vehicle is shorter than a desired inter-vehicle distance. The “wherein the specified condition includes a requirement that an actual acceleration of the vehicle is a negative value and an absolute value of the actual acceleration is greater than a stipulated acceleration set in advance” step includes a human determining that the vehicle requires rapid deceleration. Furthermore, the “wherein the stipulated acceleration is based on a maximum deceleration provided by a braking force of a device other than a friction brake” step includes a human mentally determining and/or calculating a maximum deceleration based on observing the capabilities of a device other than a friction brake that supplies braking force. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control device comprising a processor that is configured to
receive a requested acceleration as one of motion requests from application software that realizes a driver assistance function of a vehicle,
in response to the received requested acceleration, generate an instruction value for an action request to control an actuator of the vehicle,
determine whether a specified condition that is set in advance is satisfied under a condition of indicating that an inter-vehicle distance from the vehicle to a preceding vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle is shorter than a stipulated distance,
and output a change signal to the application software to reduce an amount of the requested acceleration such that the inter-vehicle distance is longer, under a condition that the specified condition is satisfied,
wherein the specified condition includes a requirement that an actual acceleration of the vehicle is a negative value and an absolute value of the actual acceleration is greater than a stipulated acceleration set in advance,
wherein the stipulated acceleration is based on a maximum deceleration provided by a braking force of a device other than a friction brake.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving a requested acceleration…”, this limitation recites mere signal transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. Additionally, the “generate an instruction value…” and “output a change signal…” limitations are also signal transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Specifically, the “in response to the received requested acceleration, generate an instruction value for an action request to control an actuator of the vehicle” limitation only recites generating instructions and does not positively recite a resulting control of a vehicle actuator. The claim also recites the additional element of a processor which is a generic computing component merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity and generic computing components.
Therefore, the additional limitations are not a “practical application.” Additionally, it is not “something more” because the limitations include a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d), and Arai, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0070293 A1, Akella et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0233414 A1, and Aizawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0316727 A1.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
101 Analysis – Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 4-7, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. These claims merely recite an abstract idea by further defining the specified condition. For example, the claims include a human operator determining the preceding vehicle is decelerating and determining the specified condition is satisfied during a total time. The claims also further define the abstract idea by further defining the device other than the friction brake and the stipulated distance. Furthermore, outputting a change signal is merely signal transmission that is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Arai, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0070293 A1, Akella et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0233414 A1, Aizawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0316727 A1, and Saito et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0174230 A1..
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0070293 A1, in view of Akella et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0233414 A1 (hereinafter Akella), and further in view of Aizawa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0316727 A1 (hereinafter Aizawa).
Regarding claim 1, Arai teaches a vehicle control device (Arai Fig. 1)
comprising a processor that is configured to (see at least Arai [0034]: “Further, the self-driving controller 20 is formed by a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU), a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), and an input/output interface (I/O interface). The self-driving controller 20 may be formed by a single microcomputer or may be formed by a plurality of microcomputers.”)
in response to the received requested acceleration, generate an instruction value for an action request to control an actuator of the vehicle (see at least Arai [0025]: “The engine controller 6A controls the throttle valve opening degree of the engine being the drive source based on a command (target acceleration α_t) from the self-driving controller 20.”),
determine whether a specified condition that is set in advance is satisfied under a condition of indicating that an inter-vehicle distance from the vehicle to a preceding vehicle traveling ahead of the vehicle is shorter than a stipulated distance (see at least Arai [0057]: “Then, at step S144, the self-driving controller 20 determines whether or not the intervehicle distance Dv is equal to or less than the set during-vehicle-stop intervehicle distance Dv_1. That is, the self-driving controller 20 determines whether or not the intervehicle distance Dv is narrowed in the deceleration control to a degree that makes it possible to determine that the host vehicle should be stopped.”),
and output a change signal to the application software to reduce an amount of the requested acceleration such that the inter-vehicle distance is longer, under a condition that the specified condition is satisfied (see at least Arai [0058]-[0059]: “On the other hand, when the self-driving controller 20 determines that the intervehicle distance Dv is equal to or less than the set during-vehicle-stop intervehicle distance Dv_1, the self-driving controller 20 performs the stop control of step S145.At step S145, the self-driving controller 20 performs the stop control to stop the host vehicle. Specifically, the self-driving controller 20 sets a target acceleration α_t (<0) according to a current vehicle speed Vs_s in such a way as to stop the host vehicle (vehicle speed Vs_s=0) as quickly as possible in a range with no hard braking.”),
wherein the specified condition includes a requirement that an actual acceleration of the vehicle is a negative value and an absolute value of the actual acceleration is greater than a stipulated acceleration set in advance (see at least Arai [0056]: “The target acceleration α_t in the deceleration control can be set to an arbitrary value taking into account that the current vehicle speed Vs_s of the host vehicle becomes a value lower than a vehicle speed set in the intervehicle maintaining control. However, in terms of properly suppressing both the host vehicle reaching the preceding vehicle and the rapid deceleration, the target acceleration α_t may be set so that the absolute value thereof becomes equal to or less than a predetermined value. In terms of smoothly stopping the host vehicle in later-described stop control, the target acceleration α_t in the deceleration control may be calculated so that the vehicle speed Vs_s becomes zero when the intervehicle distance Dv has reached the set during-vehicle-stop intervehicle distance Dv_1.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation Arai discloses the absolute value of the actual acceleration is greater than a stipulated acceleration set in advance because the absolute value of the target acceleration during the deceleration control can be suppressed so that the absolute value of the target acceleration becomes less than the predetermined value).
Arai fails to expressly disclose receiving a requested acceleration as one of motion requests from application software that realizes a driver assistance function. However, Akella teaches
receive a requested acceleration as one of motion requests from application software that realizes a driver assistance function of a vehicle (see at least Akella [0037]: “The example control requests may include one or more of velocity information, distance information, time information, and/or acceleration information for executing a single command, e.g., relative to a single object, feature, or object.”; [0068]: “Memory 218, 244 are examples of non-transitory computer-readable media. Memory 218, 244 can store an operating system and one or more software applications, instructions, programs, and/or data to implement the methods described herein and the functions attributed to the various systems.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Arai with the request from application software taught by Akella with reasonable expectation of success. Akella is directed towards the related field of command determination for controlling a vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Arai with Akella to increase rider comfort and safety by improving vehicle control (see at least Akella [0012]: “Such unique command (acceleration) determinations may provide for improved control with respect to objects and/or environmental conditions as opposed to such conventional systems. The techniques described herein may result in a smoother ride for passengers and increased safety for the autonomous vehicle and/or objects in the environment.”).
Arai in view of Akella fail to expressly disclose the stipulated acceleration based on a maximum deceleration provided by a braking force of a device other than a friction brake. However, Aizawa teaches
wherein the stipulated acceleration is based on a maximum deceleration provided by a braking force of a device other than a friction brake (see at least Aizawa [0035]: “With regard to the acceleration value Adec, the own-vehicle acceleration value obtained through the engine brake is made to be a minimum acceleration value, i.e., a maximum deceleration value, so that the time in which the own vehicle decelerates can be made to be a minimum.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a braking force of a device other than a friction brake includes an engine brake, as evidenced by claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Arai in view of Akella with the engine brake deceleration taught by Aizawa with reasonable expectation of success. Aizawa is directed towards the related field of a vehicle drive assistance apparatus. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Arai in view of Akella with Aizawa to avoid unintended braking control (see at least Aizawa [0007]: “The present disclosure has been implemented in order to solve the foregoing problem; the objective thereof is to provide a motorcycle-drive assistance apparatus that makes rapid deceleration by an engine brake possible so that braking control unintended by a rider can be avoided.”)
Regarding claim 4, Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Arai further teaches
wherein the specified condition includes a requirement that an actual acceleration of the preceding vehicle is a negative value (see at least Arai [0052]: “This is for more reliably ensuring a braking distance that can prevent the host vehicle from reaching the preceding vehicle without rapid deceleration even in the case where, for example, the preceding vehicle is suddenly stopped (the case where the vehicle speed Vs_a of the preceding vehicle becomes zero in a short time).”; [0096]: “Further, as described above, in the traffic jam, with the intervehicle maintaining control that controls the travel of the host vehicle based on the intervehicle distance Dv, the start and the stop of the host vehicle are repeated according to the repetition of the start and the stop of the preceding vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 6, Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Aizawa further teaches wherein:
the device other than the friction brake includes at least one of an engine or a motor generator of a powertrain device (see at least Aizawa [0035]: “With regard to the acceleration value Adec, the own-vehicle acceleration value obtained through the engine brake is made to be a minimum acceleration value, i.e., a maximum deceleration value, so that the time in which the own vehicle decelerates can be made to be a minimum.”).
Regarding claim 7, Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Arai further teaches wherein:
the stipulated distance increases when a speed of the vehicle increases (see at least Arai [0050]: “Referring back to FIG. 3, at step S142, the self-driving controller 20 determines whether or not the intervehicle distance Dv is less than a preset deceleration control threshold value Dv_low.”; [0052]: “The deceleration control threshold value Dv_low is a value that is set to be larger as the vehicle speed Vs_s increases (see a solid line graph in FIG. 5 described later).”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa, and further in view of Saito et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0174230 A1 (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 5, Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa teach all elements of the vehicle control device according to claim 1 as explained above. Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa fail to expressly disclose changing the requested acceleration such that inter-vehicle distance is longer under a condition that the specified condition is satisfied over the total time. However, Saito teaches wherein:
the processor is configured to output the change signal for changing the requested acceleration (see at least Saito [0097]: “Therefore, by restricting the deceleration, the inter-vehicle distance D1 is gradually increased.”),
under a condition that a total time during which the specified condition is satisfied in a stipulated period set in advance is no less than a reference time set in advance (see at least Saito [0086]: “Alternatively, whether or not the relative position in the advancing direction is constant may be determined on the basis of whether or not a state in which the relative distance between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction is within a predetermined range continues for the first predetermined time.”; [0188]: “In the embodiment in FIGS. 5 (A) to 8, when the adjacent vehicle 502 is within the monitoring region 530 (in other words, in a cut-in possible position) and the relative speed between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 has exceeded the first predetermined time (first time threshold value) (S605 in FIG. 6: true), the target acceleration calculation unit 206 (acceleration/deceleration control unit) switches the inter-vehicle distance control to the vehicle speed control (S606 in FIG. 6). In other words, the target acceleration calculation unit 206 corrects the acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle 500 when the first predetermined time has elapsed.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device disclosed by Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa with the changing the requested acceleration when a condition is satisfied for a total time taught by Saito with reasonable expectation of success. Saito is directed towards the related field of a vehicle control device that performs driving assistance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Arai in view of Akella and Aizawa with Saito to improve ride comfort (see at least Saito [0009]: “The present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and an object thereof is to provide a vehicle control device capable of improving ride comfort of a driver.”).
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 ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662