DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-18 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 11-14 are amended. Claims 2, 7, 9, and 10 are original. Claims 15-18 are new.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 11/12/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2021-129222 filed in Japan on 08/05/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The amendment to the title, filed 11/12/2025, is acceptable and the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/12/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the specification objection (presented on p. 15 under the heading: Specification Objection), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objection have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 15 under the heading: Claim Objections), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112(b) (presented on p. 15-16 under the heading: Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 103 (presented on p. 16-23 under the heading: Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 103), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive.
The arguments on p. 17-18 state that the cited prior art does not render the claims obvious and states there is no motivation to combine such references, and state that the references teach away from Applicant’s unique and innovative vehicle control device and method. However, it is unclear how to respond to these arguments, as no reasoned arguments have been provided for any of these points. The arguments amount to general allegations of patentability without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The arguments on p. 19 emphasize that all three determinations must be satisfied simultaneously for a determination of traffic congestion, and state that US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) does not teach or suggest conditions other than proximate vehicles and speed, and that US2018/0342155A1 (Lindholm et al.), and US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong) do not teach the use of all three conditions as claimed. These arguments are not persuasive. The arguments refer to each of the references individually. However, the office has not rejected the claims as being anticipated by any single reference, and rather has rejected the claims under 103 as being obvious based on a combination of references. It is also noted that the claims do not use the term “simultaneous” or any similar term. Patel et al. requires all of plural conditions being present in order to make a determination of traffic congestion (see Figure 2, “yes” determinations required at all of 215, 220, and 225 in order to proceed to 235). Lindholm et al. and Jeong merely modify these conditions. The office therefore maintains that the claims are obvious based on the combination of the cited references.
The arguments on p. 19-20 recite Claim 5 and the limitation regarding traffic congestion being resolve, and state that Patel et al. and Jeong do not teach such a limitation, and using the same predetermined speed and time. The office respectfully disagrees. The determination of congestion absence (now amended to be “resolved) was mapped to Patel et al. having a result of “no” at block 215. The determination at block 215 was modified by Jeong to use a particular amount of time. Therefore, the resolution of traffic congestion must use the same predetermined speed and time that was used to determine traffic congestion, because the determination of congestion or its resolution are both based on the same block, merely with a “yes” result indicating congestion and a “no” result indicating the resolution.
The arguments on p. 20 again state that there is no motivation to combine the references. However, the previous office action on p. 7 and 8 included paragraphs directly explaining the obviousness rationale and motivation to combine references. No reasoned arguments about specific points in these paragraphs have been provided.
The arguments on p. 20 again state that the cited references teach away from the claimed invention. However, no reasoned arguments have been provided about which sections of Patel et al., Lindholm et al. or Jeong teach away from the claimed invention.
The arguments on p. 21-22 states that the rejection relies on conclusory statements instead of rational underpinnings. However, the arguments do not specify which statements in the rejection are alleged as “conclusory.” As such it is unclear how to respond. The arguments again state that no motivation has been provided to combine the references, and state the rejection is therefore improper hindsight. However, the arguments do not address the specific motivation statements provided in the rejections or state why these are not proper. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, the independent claims remain rejected based on the previously cited references and the mapping has been updated to reflect the amendments.
Regarding Claim 12, the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 in the last limitation, “a predetermined speed” should instead read “the predetermined speed”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 6-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0342155A1 (Lindholm et al.), further in view of US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong).
Regarding Claim 1, Patel et al. discloses a vehicle control device configured to be used in a subject vehicle (see Figure 1, computer 105 in vehicle 101) configured to execute congestion automated driving, the congestion automated driving being automated driving permitted in traffic congestion (see [0037] executing the flowchart of Figure 2 including [0034, 0059] traffic jam assist, semi-autonomous driving), the vehicle control device comprising:
at least one processor (see [0063]); and
at least one memory storing a program configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (see [0063] and [0037] computer performing flowchart of Figure 2):
determining traffic congestion based on a speed of the subject vehicle used as a condition (see Figure 2, decisions leading to 235 being the determining of traffic jam or not (i.e. congestion level), including based on [0041] speed of vehicle as evaluated at 215); and
switching between execution and non-execution of the congestion automated driving in accordance with a determination result of the determining (see Figure 2, activation of the traffic jam assist being switching to execution, based on determination reaching block 235), wherein
the determining traffic congestion includes
determining whether there is at least one surrounding vehicle including a preceding vehicle ahead of the subject vehicle (see [0043] block 220, other vehicles proximate, using sensors 110, see also [0050] detecting front and rear vehicles),
determining whether a situation in which the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined speed (see [0041] block 215), and
determining that traffic congestion is present when conditions are all met (see Figure 2 plurality of “yes” conditions 215-225), the conditions including
a condition that there is determined to be at least one surrounding vehicle including the preceding vehicle ahead of the subject vehicle (see [0043] block 220, other vehicles proximate, using sensors 110, see also [0050] detecting front and rear vehicles), and
a condition that the situation in which the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined speed (see [0041] block 215).
Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the determining traffic congestion includes:
determining whether a road type of a road on which the subject vehicle travels is a specific road type in which the congestion automated driving is permitted,
and does not explicitly recite the conditions including:
a condition that the road type of the road on which the subject vehicle travels is determined to be the specific road type in which the congestion automated driving is permitted.
However, Lindholm et al. teaches a technique to determine congestion including:
determining whether a road type of a road on which the subject vehicle travels is a specific road type in which the congestion automated driving is permitted, and
a condition that a road type of a road on which the subject vehicle travels is a specific road type in which the congestion automated driving is permitted (see [0039] distinguish a traffic jam on the highway (as opposed to local road travel), thereby allowing the host vehicle 102 enable specific autonomous vehicle application features corresponding to an autonomous vehicle operating on a highway).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conditions of Patel et al. to further include the condition for road type as taught by Lindholm et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to consider additional conditions and improve accuracy by reducing false positives of traffic jam detection when road types change (see Lindholm et al., [0039]).
Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the determination and condition being that the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined speed:
has continued for a first predetermined time or more.
However, Jeong teaches a determined condition for detecting congestion (see [0109] determine whether the vehicle enters the traffic congestion section) where a predetermined speed:
has continued for a first predetermined time or more (see [0109] when the average value of the speed of the vehicle 10 is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value for a predetermined time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the condition of speed in Patel et al. to be for a predetermined time as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by reducing the effects of instantaneous noise and transients by considering a period of time.
Regarding Claim 2, Patel et al. discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the conditions further include a speed difference between the subject vehicle and each of surrounding vehicles including the preceding vehicle (see [0045] block 225, values compared to threshold, [0050] e.g. distances over a period of time (i.e. speed) to front and rear target vehicles 102 changed by more than a threshold).
Regarding Claim 6, Patel et al. discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein
the determining traffic congestion (see Figure 2, [0045] block 225) includes determining whether an amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to a second predetermined time is within a predetermined amount of change (see [0045] change in vehicle speed meeting or exceeding threshold, i.e. within the range of changes of speed exceeding the threshold [0049] evaluation of change of speed e.g. over three seconds),
the conditions include a condition that the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to the second predetermined time is determined to be within the predetermined amount of change (see [0045] change in vehicle speed meeting or exceeding threshold, i.e. within the range of changes of speed exceeding the threshold), and
the determining traffic congestion further includes determining that traffic congestion is absent (see Figure 2, “no” at block 225) on a condition that the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to the second predetermined time is determined not to be within the predetermined amount of change(when threshold not met, see [0045, 0049] i.e. change in speed outside the “predetermined amount”).
Regarding Claim 7, Patel et al. discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 6, wherein the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle is a deviation from a reference value of the speed of the subject vehicle (see [0045, 0049] change in speed necessarily having some first reference speed from which the “change” is measured).
Regarding Claim 8, Patel et al. discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein
the determining traffic congestion (see Figure 2, [0045] block 225) includes determining whether an amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to a second predetermined time is within a predetermined amount of change (see [0045] change in vehicle speed meeting or exceeding threshold, i.e. within the range of changes of speed exceeding the threshold [0049] evaluation of change of speed e.g. over three seconds),
the conditions include a condition that the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to the second predetermined time is determined to be within the predetermined amount of change (see [0045] change in vehicle speed meeting or exceeding threshold, i.e. within the range of changes of speed exceeding the threshold), and
the determining traffic congestion further includes
determining occurrence of traffic congestion (see [0045] “yes” at 225 proceeds to 235, when value exceeds threshold) on the condition that the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to the second predetermined time is determined to be within the predetermined amount of change (see [0045] change in vehicle speed meeting or exceeding threshold, i.e. within the range of changes of speed exceeding the threshold), and
determining resolution of traffic congestion without using the condition that the amount of change in the speed of the subject vehicle with respect to the second predetermined time is determined not to be within the predetermined amount of change (see Figure 2, “no” at block 215 determines traffic congestion not present, without proceeding to block 225 determination/condition).
Regarding Claim 11, Patel et al. discloses the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the determining traffic congestion further includes determining occurrence of traffic congestion (see Figure 2, determinations that result in block 235) and resolution of traffic congestion (see Figure 2, any later iteration that does not result in block 235 as a negative determination of the traffic jam, i.e. resolution), and
the first predetermined time is the same for both determination of the occurrence of traffic congestion and determination of the resolution of traffic congestion (see Figure 2, using the same block 215 for determination of congestion and resolution (i.e. same speed and time thresholds per Patel et al. in combination with Jeong per the rejection of Claim 1, above)).
Regarding Claim 13: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 13 pertains to a method corresponding to the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0342155A1 (Lindholm et al.), further in view of US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong), further in view of Publication JP2020153920A (Matsumoto) (English description relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 3, Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein
the determining traffic congestion includes determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle and a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle are less than or equal to a threshold value, and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle and the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle are determined to be less than or equal to the threshold value.
However, Matsumoto teaches a technique to determine traffic congestion (see [0024], stopping due to congestion determined), including:
determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle and a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle are less than or equal to a threshold value (see [0024] stopping due to traffic congestion determined based on vehicle in front and behind own vehicle also stopped, i.e. 0 speed difference between subject vehicle and following and preceding, 0 being less than the smallest detectable speed (threshold)), and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle and the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle are determined to be less than or equal to the threshold value (see [0024] stopping due to traffic congestion determined based on vehicle in front and behind own vehicle also stopped, i.e. 0 speed difference between subject vehicle and following and preceding, 0 being less than the smallest detectable speed (threshold)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conditions of Patel et al. to further include evaluation of speed difference as taught by Matsumoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to use additional conditions such as stopped vehicle conditions while improving driver psychological state (see Matsumoto, [0008, 0024]).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0342155A1 (Lindholm et al.), further in view of US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong), further in view of NPL Publication “Smart Driving of a Vehicle Using Model Predictive Control for Improving Traffic Flow” (Kamal et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein
the determining traffic congestion includes determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle, and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle.
However, Kamal et al. teaches that a condition for traffic congestion (see Abstract, waves in congested/dense traffic) includes:
determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle (see Figure 1a, p. 880, a jamming wave characterized by plural vehicles in series adjusting relative position over time, i.e. the change in relative position (requiring speed difference) between a first (preceding) and second (subject vehicle) happens before subject vehicle and later following vehicle), and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the following vehicle behind the subject vehicle or the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle (see Figure 1a, p. 880, a jamming wave characterized by plural vehicles in series adjusting relative position over time, i.e. the change in relative position (requiring speed difference) between a first (preceding) and second (subject vehicle) happens before subject vehicle and later following vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the condition of Patel et al. to further include traffic wave conditions as taught by Kamal et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to use additional conditions and mitigating such congestion via intervehicle distance regulation (see Kamal et al., Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein the determining traffic congestion includes determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle, and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle.
However, Kamal et al. teaches that a condition for traffic congestion (see Abstract, waves in congested/dense traffic) includes:
determining whether a speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of a speed difference between the subject vehicle and a side vehicle on a lateral side of the subject vehicle(see Figure 1a, p. 880, a jamming wave characterized by plural vehicles in series adjusting relative position over time, i.e. the change in relative position (requiring speed difference) between a first (preceding) and second (subject vehicle) happens before subject vehicle and later following vehicle, and see p. 881, vehicles in multiple lanes, i.e. a following/behind vehicle may also be to a lateral side), and
the conditions further include a condition that the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the preceding vehicle increases earlier than increase of the speed difference between the subject vehicle and the side vehicle on the lateral side of the subject vehicle(see Figure 1a, p. 880, a jamming wave characterized by plural vehicles in series adjusting relative position over time, i.e. the change in relative position (requiring speed difference) between a first (preceding) and second (subject vehicle) happens before subject vehicle and later following vehicle, and see p. 881, vehicles in multiple lanes, i.e. a following/behind vehicle may also be to a lateral side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the condition of Patel et al. to further include traffic wave conditions as taught by Kamal et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the system to use additional conditions and mitigating such congestion via intervehicle distance regulation (see Kamal et al., Abstract).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) in view of US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong).
Regarding Claim 5, Patel et al. discloses a vehicle control device configured to be used in a subject vehicle (see Figure 1, computer 105 in vehicle 101) configured to execute congestion automated driving, the congestion automated driving being automated driving permitted in traffic congestion (see [0037] executing the flowchart of Figure 2 including [0034, 0059] traffic jam assist, semi-autonomous driving), the vehicle control device comprising:
at least one processor (see [0063]); and
at least one memory storing a program configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (see [0063] and [0037] computer performing flowchart of Figure 2):
determining traffic congestion based on a speed of the subject vehicle used as a condition (see Figure 2, decisions leading to 235 being the determining of traffic jam or not (i.e. congestion level), including based on [0041] speed of vehicle as evaluated at 215); and
switching between execution and non-execution of the congestion automated driving in accordance with a determination result of the determining (see Figure 2, activation of the traffic jam assist being switching to execution, based on determination reaching block 235), wherein
the determining traffic congestion includes
determining whether a situation in which the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined speed (see [0041] block 215),
determining that traffic congestion is present on a condition that the situation in which the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined speed occurs (see Figure 2, “yes” at block 215 and proceeding to block 235), and
determining that the traffic congestion is resolved (see Figure 2, “no” at 215 not resulting in block 235) on a condition that the situation in which the speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined speed is determined to have not occurred (see [0041] “no” at 215 when speed is not below threshold) after the determining that the traffic congestion is present (see Figure 2, block 235 (traffic congestion was present) leads to block 240, whereby by process continues for a next determination at block 215).
Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the condition and determining traffic congestion includes determining the speed situation:
has continued for a first predetermined time or more.
However, Jeong teaches a condition for detecting congestion (see [0109] determine whether the vehicle enters the traffic congestion section) including evaluating speed:
for a first predetermined time (see [0109] when the average value of the speed of the vehicle 10 is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value for a predetermined time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the condition of speed in Patel et al. to be for a predetermined time as taught by Jeong, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy by reducing the effects of instantaneous noise and transients by considering a period of time.
Regarding Claim 14: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 5. Claim 14 pertains to a method corresponding to the apparatus of Claim 5. Claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 5, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2019/0163180A1 (Patel et al.) in view of Publication US2018/0342155A1 (Lindholm et al.), further in view of US2020/0180602A1 (Jeong), further in view of Publication US2020/0298876A1 (Mimura et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Patel et al. discloses the congestion automated driving includes semi-autonomous driving (see [0034]).
Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein
the congestion automated driving includes
congestion automated driving without a monitoring obligation being imposed on a driver of the subject vehicle, and
congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation being imposed on the driver of the subject vehicle, and
at least one of the predetermined speed or the first predetermined time is different between determination of traffic congestion that is a condition for the congestion automated driving without the monitoring obligation and determination of traffic congestion that is a condition for the congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation.
However, Mimura et al. teaches a technique for congestion automated driving (see Figure 15, TJP referring to [0078] automated driving) which includes:
congestion automated driving without a monitoring obligation being imposed on a driver of the subject vehicle (see Figure 15, [0124] TJP operation below 30 km/h is before the obligation occurs), and
congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation being imposed on the driver of the subject vehicle (see Figure 15, [0124] TJP operation above 30 km/h, obligation occurs), and
at least one of the predetermined speed or the first predetermined time is different between determination of traffic congestion that is a condition for the congestion automated driving without the monitoring obligation and determination of traffic congestion that is a condition for the congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation (see Figure 15, 30km/h or 40km/h predetermined maximum speed corresponding to the two types of the congestion automated driving).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the phrase "at least one," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the congestion automated driving of Patel et al. to further include variations of monitoring obligations as taught by Mimura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driver convenience while providing safe automated driving (see Mimura et al. [0078, 0133]).
Regarding Claim 10, Patel et al. does not explicitly recite the vehicle control device according to claim 9, wherein the predetermined speed is lower and/or the first predetermined time is longer in the determination of traffic congestion that is the condition for the congestion automated
driving without the monitoring obligation than in the determination of traffic congestion that is the condition for the congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation.
However, Mimura et al. teaches the technique as above, wherein:
the predetermined speed is lower and/or the first predetermined time is longer in the determination of traffic congestion that is the condition for the congestion automated driving without the monitoring obligation than in the determination of traffic congestion that is the condition for the congestion automated driving with the monitoring obligation (see 30km/h being a lower maximum speed for no monitoring obligation, versus 40km/h with monitoring obligation).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "and/or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
The motivation to combine Patel et al. and Mimura et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 16-18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 5, 13, and 14 the claims are rendered obvious per the rejections above under 103.
Publication US20180247527A1 teaches a lower speed limit associated with determination of a traffic jam which may be between 20-40 km/h (see [0021])
Publication JP2021111223A teaches use of a combination of speed data and hazard lamp data to determine a traffic jam (see e.g. Abstract).
Publication WO2005064568A1 teaches a reduction of a speed threshold based on a total value of traffic influences (See Claims 1, 7),
However, regarding Claims 12 and 16-18, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious all features of the respective independent claim, further wherein:
the determining traffic congestion further includes increasing the predetermined speed and/or shortening the first predetermined time based on (i) the road type of the road on which the subject vehicle travels is the specific road type in which the congestion automated driving is permitted and (ii) lighting of a hazard light of the preceding vehicle ahead of the subject vehicle is detected.
The combination of limitations defining the particular thresholds for determination of traffic congestion, with the thresholds changing in the manner claimed based on both road type and lighting of hazard lights, combined with the particularly claimed parts integrated into the vehicle is not found or made obvious by the prior art. The combination with the other claim limitations, clearly claimed for a patent, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such the claimed subject matter of Claims 12 and 16-18 would be allowable.
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights