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 .
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.
Applicant sufficiently amended the claims to clarify the previously presented indefinite issues, and thus the related 112b rejections are withdrawn.
However, amended claim 1 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “reduce the vehicle speed and the lateral acceleration to or below the first speed threshold”. This would indicate that the lateral acceleration is reduced to below a speed threshold, which does not make sense unit wise (m/^2 vs m/s). The examiner is interpreting this to not include “and the lateral acceleration”, as the following condition (“reduce the lateral acceleration to or below the first lateral threshold”) better conforms, without unit issue, to the likely intent of the claim.
Based on their dependency on indefinite materials, dependent claims 3-6 and 8 are also considered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US20200180617A1) in view of Ito (US20220219688A1) and Sato (US20200207348A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tezuka teaches;
A vehicle deceleration support device that is applied to a vehicle provided with a steering assist device (taught as a vehicle control device [also referred as present control device], paragraph 0067) configured to perform autonomous steering by an autonomous steering device when the steering assist device is operating in a hands-off mode (taught as a steering control ECU, element 40, to control changing/controlling the steering angle, e.g. paragraph 0108),
the vehicle deceleration support device comprising:
an automatic braking device that performs automatic braking (taught as a braking ECU, element 30); and
a control unit configured to
determine whether the vehicle speed [[is greater than a first speed threshold]] when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode (taught as reading out information from various sensors in the speed management control routine, paragraph 0178, including wheel speed sensors, element 11):
determine whether the lateral acceleration [[is greater than a first lateral acceleration threshold]] when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode (taught as reading out information from various sensors in the speed management control routine, paragraph 0178, including yaw rate sensors, element 16);
calculate a target deceleration sufficient to
reduce the vehicle speed and the lateral acceleration to or below the first speed threshold (taught as controlling the vehicle speed by adjusting the acceleration, including calculating a speed such that the vehicle does not exceed an upper limit vehicle speed, paragraph 0118 and 0121) and
reduce the lateral acceleration to or below the first lateral acceleration threshold (taught as the calculated driving support target acceleration, e.g. step 650, Fig 6, paragraph 0195),
in response to
determining that the vehicle speed is greater than the first speed threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode (taught as determining a target vehicle speed that acts as the upper limit speed, and controlling the vehicle speed such that it does not exceed the target vehicle speed, paragraph 0128; under such logic, the condition of a vehicle speed exceeding the target vehicle speed would cause the vehicle to decelerate) or
determining that the lateral acceleration is greater than the first lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode (taught as applying the calculated driving support target acceleration, e.g. step 650, Fig 6, paragraph 0195, such that the actual acceleration coincides with the driving support target acceleration, paragraph 0196): and
decelerate the vehicle by the automatic braking such that a deceleration of the vehicle becomes the target deceleration (taught as applying the calculated driving support target acceleration, e.g. step 650, Fig 6, paragraph 0195, such that the actual acceleration coincides with the driving support target acceleration, paragraph 0196), and
wherein the first speed threshold is set to a value smaller than the steering control speed threshold (taught as the second target vehicle speed which is lower than the first target vehicle speed, e.g. paragraph 0016), and
wherein the first lateral acceleration threshold is set to a value smaller than the steering control lateral acceleration threshold (taught as the second upper limit lateral acceleration which is smaller than the first upper limit lateral acceleration, e.g paragraphs 0021, 0232).
However, Tezuka does not explicitly teach;
determine whether the vehicle speed is greater than a first speed threshold when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode:
determine whether the lateral acceleration is greater than a first lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode;
and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(i)when a vehicle speed of the vehicle exceeds a steering control speed threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode or
(ii) when a lateral acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands- off mode, (emphasis added).
Ito teaches; determine whether the vehicle speed is greater than a first speed threshold when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode (taught as determining actual vehicle speed vs a speed limit, paragraph 0050):
and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(i)when a vehicle speed of the vehicle exceeds a steering control speed threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode (taught as switching from a hands-off mode to a hands-on mode if the traveling condition assesses that the vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit, paragraph 0050).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to handoff autonomous control to an operator when a speed of the vehicle exceeds a limit as taught by Ito in the system taught by Tezuka in order to promote safety. Such actions prevent system limits, where autonomous functions are no longer sufficient to safely control the vehicle, and as suggested by Ito, allows travel based on appropriate levels of driving assistance (paragraph 0007), and further allows for more iterative/transitional states between autonomous driving and manual intervention.
However, Ito does not explicitly teach; and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(ii) when a lateral acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands- off mode.
Sato teaches; determine whether the lateral acceleration is greater than a first lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device is operating in the hands-off mode (taught as determining when the lateral acceleration exceeds limit values, paragraph 0051)
and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(ii) when a lateral acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands- off mode (taught as when the lateral acceleration exceeds limit values, paragraph 0051, stopping the automated driving function and shift to a fallback control mode, and requesting the driver to takeover, paragraph 0057).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to handoff autonomous control to an operator when a lateral acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a limit as taught by Sato in the system taught by Tezuka in order to promote safety. Such actions prevent system limits, where autonomous functions are no longer sufficient to safely control the vehicle [being outside the range of stable operation as in Sato, paragraph 0050], from being exceeded.
Regarding claim 3, Tezuka as modified by Ito and Sato teaches;
The vehicle deceleration support device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Tezuka further teaches; wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the target deceleration as a target deceleration for making both the vehicle speed and the lateral acceleration of the vehicle equal to or less than a corresponding second reference value when determination is made that one of the vehicle speed and the lateral acceleration of the vehicle is greater than the corresponding second reference value (taught as providing, in addition to the first and second lateral maps, additional first customization lateral G map and second customization lateral G map, paragraph 0284, in this modified embodiment, the first reference value would fall under the scope of the second customization lateral G map, and the second reference value would fall under the second lateral G map, where the second lateral G map has a higher value than the second customization lateral G map, shown in Fig 11), and the second reference value is set to a value greater than the first reference value (taught as the second lateral G map having a higher value than the second customization lateral G map, shown in Fig 11).
While Tezuka does not explicitly teach “in a case in which the steering mode is a hands-on mode”, Tezuka’s autonomous driving is directed to an adaptive cruise control (paragraph 0078), which can apply for both a hands-on or hands-off mode.
Regarding claim 4, Tezuka as modified by Ito and Sato teaches;
The vehicle deceleration support device according to claim 2 (see claim 2 rejection). Tezuka further teaches; wherein the control unit calculates a target deceleration based on a first vehicle speed for making the vehicle speed equal to or less than the corresponding first reference value when determination is made that the vehicle speed is greater than the corresponding first reference value in the situation in which the steering mode is the hands-off mode (taught as the speed management control [autonomous driving] preventing the vehicle speed exceeding the upper limit vehicle speed by a second speed management control, paragraph 0128, and using the upper limit vehicle speed, paragraph 0211 and 0233, Fig 7 Step 715 [which was branched off from Fig 6 step 645], to calculate a support target acceleration, Fig 6 Step 650),
calculates a target deceleration based on a first lateral acceleration for making the lateral acceleration of the vehicle equal to or less than the corresponding first reference value when determination is made that the lateral acceleration of the vehicle is greater than the corresponding first reference value in the situation in which the steering mode is the hands-off mode (taught as the speed management control [autonomous driving] preventing the lateral acceleration from exceeding the upper limit lateral acceleration [G] value, paragraph 0210 [smaller than the first lateral map, paragraph 0234], Fig 7 step 710 [which was branched off from Fig 6 step 645] to calculate a support target acceleration, Fig 6 Step 650), and
sets a higher value of the target deceleration based on the first vehicle speed and the target deceleration based on the first lateral acceleration as the target deceleration when the steering mode is the hands-off mode (taught as increasing the magnitude of the deceleration as the vehicle speed becomes higher during speed management control, paragraph 0209).
Regarding claim 5, Tezuka as modified by Ito and Sato teaches;
The vehicle deceleration support device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Tezuka further teaches; wherein the vehicle is a vehicle in which follow-up vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is performed (taught as an objective-forward vehicle paragraph 0099).
Regarding Claim 6, Tezuka as modified by Ito and Sato teaches;
The vehicle deceleration support device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Tezuka does not explicitly teach; wherein the control unit is configured to notify the driver that the hands-on is requested (i) when the vehicle speed exceeds the steering control speed threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode or (ii) when the lateral acceleration exceeds the steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode.
Ito teaches; and to request a driver to perform hands-on
wherein the control unit is configured to notify the driver that the hands-on is requested (i) when the vehicle speed exceeds the steering control speed threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode (taught as switching from a hands-off mode to a hands-on mode if the traveling condition assesses that the vehicle speed exceeds the speed limit, paragraph 0050).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to handoff autonomous control to an operator when a speed of the vehicle exceeds a limit as taught by Ito in the system taught by Tezuka in order to promote safety. Such actions prevent system limits, where autonomous functions are no longer sufficient to safely control the vehicle, and as suggested by Ito, allows travel based on appropriate levels of driving assistance (paragraph 0007), and further allows for more iterative/transitional states between autonomous driving and manual intervention.
However, Ito does not explicitly teach; and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(ii) when the lateral acceleration exceeds the steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode.
Sato teaches; and to request a driver to perform hands-on
(ii) when the lateral acceleration exceeds the steering control lateral acceleration threshold when the steering assist device operates in the hands-off mode (taught as when the lateral acceleration exceeds limit values, paragraph 0051, stopping the automated driving function and shift to a fallback control mode, and requesting the driver to takeover, paragraph 0057).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to handoff autonomous control to an operator when a lateral acceleration of the vehicle exceeds a limit as taught by Sato in the system taught by Tezuka in order to promote safety. Such actions prevent system limits, where autonomous functions are no longer sufficient to safely control the vehicle [being outside the range of stable operation as in Sato, paragraph 0050], from being exceeded.
Regarding claims 7-8, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claims 7-8 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 6 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that the amended claim material is not taught by the recited prior art.
The examiner agrees that Tezuka does not teach requesting a driver to perform hands on [takeover] based on a speed limit or a lateral acceleration limit, and withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of Ito and Sato has been made above to remedy the deficiencies of Tezuka.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks that based on the independent claims allowability, dependent claims are also allowable.
Based on the above rejections, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto US20180074492A1
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 GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662