DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “may cause” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “may cause” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Anything not controlled by the driver “may cause” uneasiness and result in the unexpected.
The term “excessive” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excessive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The system is trying to avoid a collision and if the lateral movement is needed to do so that wouldn’t be excessive would it?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Abe (U.S. Pat. No. 12,344,282).
Regarding claim 1, Abe discloses a vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
an external environment sensor (31) configured to detect an external environment situation including a location of an object in a surrounding area of a vehicle (1); and
an electronic control unit (50) including a processor and a memory coupled to the processor (col. 6, lines 30-44), wherein the electronic control unit:
recognizes the external environment situation of the vehicle based on a signal from the external environment sensor (s31);
performs steering assistance to start steering by controlling a turning mechanism of the vehicle based on the external environment situation (col. 14, lines 20-33 discloses identifying the lane and col. 17, line 50-67 discloses that navigating the lane through control of steering velocity is part of the steering assist);
calculates a target steering angular velocity (s39) of steering assistance of the vehicle based on the external environment situation recognized;
performs the steering assistance at the target steering angular velocity until a duration of a period (s43), during which the target steering angular velocity exceeds a predetermined steering angular velocity, exceeds a predetermined duration (col. 16, lines 5-32 discloses how the control is used and then the durations of the controls are analyzed);
limits the steering assistance by decreasing the target steering angular velocity to a limited steering angular velocity when the duration of the period exceeds the predetermined duration (the system limits the target velocity to what is needed to avoid contact but S83 chooses between two different controls); and
limits the steering assistance so that a change amount of a steering angle of the vehicle from a start of the steering assistance is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value (col. 16, lines 43-47).
Note: this “predetermined value” is not given any limitations. In this rejection the target values are construed as the predetermined values and so always limiting the system to the chosen target values.
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the predetermined value is set so that the duration does not to exceed the predetermined duration (col. 16, lines 50-56 allows for any set driving duration).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the electronic control unit limits the steering assistance so that the change amount from the start of the steering assistance until a predetermined period has elapsed is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value (the point of a steering angle velocity is the rate at which the steering angle is changing so this system is limiting the change amount to the calculated target amount, i.e. velocity).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 2, Abe discloses wherein the predetermined value is set to a smaller value as a traveling speed of the vehicle increases.
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the limited steering angular velocity is zero (col. 25, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the external environment sensor includes at least one of a camera (31 is a camera), a millimeter wave radar (camera option addressed), and a LiDAR (camera option addressed), wherein the electronic control unit recognizes the external environment situation in the surrounding area with an advancing direction of the vehicle as a center based on the signal from the external environment sensor (the cameras are looking forward).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the electronic control unit: recognizes a traveling lane in which the vehicle travels; and performs the steering assistance so that the vehicle travels in the traveling lane based on the external environment situation when it is determined that the vehicle has departed from the traveling lane or is departing from the traveling lane based on a recognition result (col. 14, lines 20-33 discloses identifying the lane and col. 17, line 50-67 discloses that navigating the lane is part of the steering assist).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the electronic control unit: determines whether the change amount is equal to or smaller than the predetermined value; limits a target steering angle of the steering assistance to a value obtained by adding a predetermined steering angle to or subtracting the predetermined steering angle from a steering angle of the vehicle at the start of the steering assistance, when it is determined that the change amount exceeds the predetermined value; and calculates the target steering angular velocity based on the target steering angle (the target steering angular velocity is always the predetermined value and so does not ever get a value that is above the predetermined value).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Abe discloses wherein the predetermined steering angular velocity is a steering angular velocity that may cause a driver of the vehicle to feel uneasy or may result in an unexpected situation (any additional control by the computer “may cause” unease result in something different than expected), wherein the predetermined duration is a duration that can generate an excessive lateral movement amount, which may cause the driver to feel uneasy or may result in an unexpected situation (where the lateral movement provides buffer space between the vehicle and object that is additional safety margin but can be considered “excessive”).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (U.S. Pat. No. 12,344,282) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in view of Park (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0120142).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 7, Abe discloses wherein in the steering assistance, a steering torque equivalent (substitute limitation) to be applied to the turning mechanism is calculated based on the target steering angular velocity, and the steering torque calculated is applied to the turning mechanism (col. 18, lines 7-15 discloses the system controlling the steering actuators to produce the desired result which would require a force equivalent calculation in order to control the actuator correctly).
Abe does not disclose calculating a steering torque.
Park, which deals in vehicle steering, teaches calculating a steering torque (¶12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Abe with the calculation of Park because Abe already has measured the steering angular velocity and so can use it to calculate needed torque.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 6 that the Abe reference does not use the steering angular velocity for a predetermined amount of time but instead immediately begins to gradually reduce that velocity. However long the target velocity is used is construed as satisfying this predetermined amount of time before the gradual reduction takes place. The system identifies obstacles and steers around those obstacles using sufficient steering velocity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights