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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/28/2025. Claims 1-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11 were amended.
Reply to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-8 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under §103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the limitations that they were cited for and that the combination of references is inappropriate, nevertheless, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amari, Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Remarks.
Examiner notes that the present new limitation regarding a second predetermined distance has a broad reasonable interpretation, or BRI. The independent claims 1 and 11 do not define at which point in the lane change section the second predetermined distance to the vehicle is measured from. Further, with respect to the arguments regarding the teachings of the references, Komiyana is not utilized to teach the concept of as target invisible section, rather the reference focuses on a system that decelerates the vehicle before the lang change area, an area present in Amari, where a barrier between the two lanes is present, see in Amani or Hashimoto, located some distance before the start of the vehicle merging area. Further, regarding the arguments over the motivation to combine, it should be noted that in Amani, OB1, the wall separating the merge and highway lanes, obstructs the vehicle (M) and the wall OB1 corresponds to the target invisible section as paragraph 50 of Amani explains that the wall cannot be seen through and thus Amani does not teach away from the claim limitations. While, Komiyana does not detect a target invisible section, and Hashimoto is not directed to a system that gives preference to the merging ramp vehicle, all the references cited are focused on the controlling the speed of vehicles around a travel path merge area; therefore, the combination of Amari, Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto is appropriate and teaches the claimed limitations. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, see MPEP 2144 IV.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, JP-2022059496-A, in view of Bang, US-20210110720-A1, Komiyama, US-20230282108-A1, and Hashimoto et al., US-20200180641-A1, hereinafter referred to as Amari, Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto (Translation by Espacenet).
As per claim 1
Amari discloses [a] vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle that performs autonomous driving, the vehicle control system comprising one or more processors (vehicle control device is applied to an autonomous driving vehicle, first control unit 120, the second control unit 160, and the HMI control unit 180 are each realized by executing a program (software) by a hardware processor such as a CPU - Amari ¶17 & ¶32),
wherein a first lane is a traffic lane in which the vehicle travels (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50),
a second lane is a traffic lane adjacent to the first lane in a lane change section of less than a predetermined distance (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50),
a lane change between the first lane and the second lane is permitted in the lane change section (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50).
Amari does not specifically disclose during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, determine whether the lane change section is present within a second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle;
if the lane change section is present within the second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle.
However, Bang teaches during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, determine whether the lane change section is present within a second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle (when an entrance and exit ramp is present within the threshold distance ahead of the current driving lane, the processor may predict that the outside vehicle will change the current driving lane to move to the entrance and exit ramp, automatically control a vehicle – Bang ¶16 & ¶75);
if the lane change section is present within the second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle (when an entrance and exit ramp is present within the threshold distance ahead of the current driving lane, the processor may predict that the outside vehicle will change the current driving lane to move to the entrance and exit ramp….determine the waiting time, compare the outside vehicle detection time with the waiting time to determine whether it is necessary to form a platoon again, decelerate the leading vehicle – Bang ¶16 & ¶67 & ¶71).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Bang teaches a system for controlling to avoid and drive around an outside vehicle which cuts in a platooning line during platooning.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a system for controlling to avoid and drive around an outside vehicle which cuts in a platooning line during platooning, as taught by Bang, with a reasonable expectation of success so that a fuel efficiency effect may be increased by increasing a time when the platooning line is maintained and increasing convenience of the driver by automatically forming a platoon again, see Bang ¶75 for details.
Amari does not specifically disclose the one or more processors are configured to: decelerate the vehicle in the [target invisible section] before the lane change section if the deceleration condition is satisfied.
However, Komiyama teaches the one or more processors are configured to: decelerate the vehicle in the [area where the target invisible section is present in Amari and Hashimoto] before the lane change section if the deceleration condition is satisfied (When determining that the opposite traveling vehicle 62 is present in the merging area G (that is, if the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 enters the merging area G after the opposite traveling vehicle 62), the controller 50 performs blocking control to decelerate the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 and stop the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 at a stop point T. The stop point T is a point before the merging point P set in advance. The stop point T is not limited to a particular point and may be set at any point, when the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled… decelerates the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled to the speed limit or less. With this deceleration, when there is a possibility of the opposite traveling vehicle 62 entering the merging point P, taking into account the possibility of stopping the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled at the stop point T, the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled can be decelerated to the speed limit or less - Komiyama Fig 1 (G, P) + ¶30 & ¶42).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Komiyama teaches a vehicle merging control system.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle merging control system, as taught by Komiyama, with a reasonable expectation of success to account for the second vehicle’s speed and prevent the travel time from being extended, see Komiyama ¶11 & ¶12 for details.
Amari does not specifically disclose determine whether a deceleration condition is satisfied, the deceleration condition including at least a condition that a target-invisible section in which the second lane is invisible from the vehicle is present between the vehicle and the lane change section; target-invisible section.
However, Hashimoto teaches determine whether a deceleration condition is satisfied, the deceleration condition including at least a condition that a target-invisible section in which the second lane is invisible from the vehicle is present between the vehicle and the lane change section; target-invisible section (main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, the vehicle controller 1 determines the preparatory speed of the vehicle 2 in the merging lane R2 based on a relative speed between the first main lane vehicle 40 traveling on the main lane R1i and the vehicle 2, the first main lane vehicle 40 being detected by the front sensor 3….Thus, when the main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, as in…wall W that disturbs the detection function of the side sensor 4 is present between the merging lane R2 and the main lane R1 (FIG. 2)… adjust the speed of the vehicle 2 based on the relative speed with the first main lane vehicle 40 even before the detection function of the side sensor 4 becomes effective. Therefore, the vehicle controller 1 can perform an appropriate preparation for merging - Hashimoto ¶63).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Hashimoto teaches a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane, as taught by Hashimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to perform an appropriate preparation for merging, see Hashimoto ¶18 for details.
As per claim 2
Amari further discloses wherein the lane change section is a merging section where the first lane and the second lane merge together (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50).
As per claim 4
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine whether or not the target-invisible section is present between the vehicle and the lane change section based on map information or a result of recognition by a recognition sensor mounted on the vehicle.
However, Hashimoto teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine whether or not the target-invisible section is present between the vehicle and the lane change section based on map information or a result of recognition by a recognition sensor mounted on the vehicle (the wall W is detected as a detection result of the side sensor 4…situation determination unit 10 monitors the detection result of the side sensor 4 , and repeatedly executes the determination in a prescribed period, determined preparatory speed is a suitable speed for merging only in the case where the vehicle 2 and the main lane vehicle 30 do not run parallel at the time when the vehicle 2 reaches the end of the first section L 1 , and enters the second section L 2 where the wall W is no longer present, when the situation determination unit 10 determines that the main lane vehicle 30 is recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, Thus, when the main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, as in…wall W that disturbs the detection function of the side sensor 4 is present between the merging lane R2 and the main lane R1 (FIG. 2) - Hashimoto ¶41 & ¶45 & ¶56 & ¶63).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Hashimoto teaches a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane, as taught by Hashimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to perform an appropriate preparation for merging, see Hashimoto ¶18 for details.
As per claim 11
Amari discloses [a] vehicle control method for controlling a vehicle that performs autonomous driving (vehicle control device is applied to an autonomous driving vehicle, first control unit 120, the second control unit 160, and the HMI control unit 180 are each realized by executing a program (software) by a hardware processor such as a CPU - Amari ¶17 & ¶32),
wherein a first lane is a traffic lane in which the vehicle travels (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50),
a second lane is a traffic lane adjacent to the first lane in a lane change section of less than a predetermined distance (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50),
a lane change between the first lane and the second lane is permitted in the lane change section (lane L1 is a merging lane that merges from the left side with respect to the traveling direction of the lane L2…lane L2 is a merging lane…merging section is a section in which the lane L1 and the lane L2 are connected - Amari Fig 3 (L1 and L2) + ¶50).
Amari does not specifically disclose during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, determining whether the lane change section is present within a second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle;
if the lane change section is present within the second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle.
However, Bang teaches during the autonomous driving of the vehicle, determining whether the lane change section is present within a second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle (when an entrance and exit ramp is present within the threshold distance ahead of the current driving lane, the processor may predict that the outside vehicle will change the current driving lane to move to the entrance and exit ramp, automatically control a vehicle – Bang ¶16 & ¶75);
if the lane change section is present within the second predetermined distance in front of the vehicle (when an entrance and exit ramp is present within the threshold distance ahead of the current driving lane, the processor may predict that the outside vehicle will change the current driving lane to move to the entrance and exit ramp….determine the waiting time, compare the outside vehicle detection time with the waiting time to determine whether it is necessary to form a platoon again, decelerate the leading vehicle – Bang ¶16 & ¶67 & ¶71).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Bang teaches a system for controlling to avoid and drive around an outside vehicle which cuts in a platooning line during platooning.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a system for controlling to avoid and drive around an outside vehicle which cuts in a platooning line during platooning, as taught by Bang, with a reasonable expectation of success so that a fuel efficiency effect may be increased by increasing a time when the platooning line is maintained and increasing convenience of the driver by automatically forming a platoon again, see Bang ¶75 for details.
Amari does not specifically disclose the vehicle control method comprises: decelerating the vehicle in the [target invisible section] before the lane change section if the deceleration condition is satisfied.
However, Komiyama teaches the vehicle control method comprises: decelerating the vehicle in the [area where the target invisible section is present in Amari and Hashimoto] before the lane change section if the deceleration condition is satisfied (When determining that the opposite traveling vehicle 62 is present in the merging area G (that is, if the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 enters the merging area G after the opposite traveling vehicle 62), the controller 50 performs blocking control to decelerate the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 and stop the predetermined traveling vehicle 6 at a stop point T. The stop point T is a point before the merging point P set in advance. The stop point T is not limited to a particular point and may be set at any point, when the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled… decelerates the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled to the speed limit or less. With this deceleration, when there is a possibility of the opposite traveling vehicle 62 entering the merging point P, taking into account the possibility of stopping the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled at the stop point T, the traveling vehicle 63 to be controlled can be decelerated to the speed limit or less - Komiyama Fig 1 (G, P) + ¶30 & ¶42).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Komiyama teaches a vehicle merging control system.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle merging control system, as taught by Komiyama, with a reasonable expectation of success to account for the second vehicle’s speed and prevent the travel time from being extended, see Komiyama ¶11 & ¶12 for details.
Amari does not specifically disclose determining whether a deceleration condition is satisfied, the deceleration condition including at least a condition that a target-invisible section in which the second lane is invisible from the vehicle is present between the vehicle and the lane change section; the target-invisible section.
However, Hashimoto teaches determining whether a deceleration condition is satisfied, the deceleration condition including at least a condition that a target-invisible section in which the second lane is invisible from the vehicle is present between the vehicle and the lane change section; the target-invisible section (main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, the vehicle controller 1 determines the preparatory speed of the vehicle 2 in the merging lane R2 based on a relative speed between the first main lane vehicle 40 traveling on the main lane R1i and the vehicle 2, the first main lane vehicle 40 being detected by the front sensor 3….Thus, when the main lane vehicle 30 is not recognizable based on the detection result of the side sensor 4, as in…wall W that disturbs the detection function of the side sensor 4 is present between the merging lane R2 and the main lane R1 (FIG. 2)… adjust the speed of the vehicle 2 based on the relative speed with the first main lane vehicle 40 even before the detection function of the side sensor 4 becomes effective. Therefore, the vehicle controller 1 can perform an appropriate preparation for merging - Hashimoto ¶63).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Hashimoto teaches a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle merge control system that determines the preparatory speed for a merging lane, as taught by Hashimoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to perform an appropriate preparation for merging, see Hashimoto ¶18 for details.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, in view of Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto, as per claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al., US-10318821-B2, hereinafter referred to as Kim.
As per claim 3
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the first lane and the second lane are different in height.
However, Kim teaches wherein the first lane and the second lane are different in height (ramp information regarding an on-ramp on which the vehicle travels to join a main road, wherein the on-ramp is a sloping road junction that connects a first road at a first elevation with a second road at a second elevation different from the first elevation - Kim Claim 1).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Kim teaches a driver assistance apparatus to adaptively enable or disable an Idle Stop-and-Go (ISG) function based on detected road situations.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a driver assistance apparatus to adaptively enable or disable an Idle Stop-and-Go (ISG) function based on detected road situations, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emission and improve the efficiency of the vehicle while avoiding unnecessary delays, see Kim Column 8 Lines 29-30 and Column 8 Lines 54-58 for details.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, in view of Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto, as per claims 1 and 5, respectively, and further in view of Ito, US-20210253108-A1, hereinafter referred to as Ito.
As per claim 5
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the deceleration condition further includes that a speed of the vehicle is higher than a restriction speed.
However, Ito teaches wherein the deceleration condition further includes that a speed of the vehicle is higher than a restriction speed (travel control unit 8 performs drive assistance control of the host vehicle, such as constant speed travel control and merging assistance control, and automatic drive control, merging section 23 is a section from a starting point 24 to an ending point 25, in which the merging lane 21 and the merging destination lane 22 are separated by broken-line lane markings, when the travel speed of the host vehicle 20 is higher than the predetermined speed v0, the vehicle speed control unit 19 may decelerate the host vehicle 20 down to the predetermined speed v0 before the host vehicle 20 passes through the starting point 24 of the merging section - Ito Fig 2 (21, 22, 24) + ¶37 & ¶52 & ¶55).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Ito teaches a vehicle control method and a vehicle control device that determines whether to execute merging assistance control.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle control method and a vehicle control device that determines whether to execute merging assistance control, as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate a driver to perform speed adjustment for changing lanes by acceleration operation when not executing merging assistance control, see Ito ¶6 for details.
As per claim 6
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the restriction speed is a predetermined constant speed.
However, Ito teaches wherein the restriction speed is a predetermined constant speed (travel control unit 8 performs drive assistance control of the host vehicle, such as constant speed travel control and merging assistance control, and automatic drive control, merging section 23 is a section from a starting point 24 to an ending point 25, in which the merging lane 21 and the merging destination lane 22 are separated by broken-line lane markings, when the travel speed of the host vehicle 20 is higher than the predetermined speed v0, the vehicle speed control unit 19 may decelerate the host vehicle 20 down to the predetermined speed v0 before the host vehicle 20 passes through the starting point 24 of the merging section - Ito Fig 2 (21, 22, 24) + ¶37 & ¶52 & ¶55).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Ito teaches a vehicle control method and a vehicle control device that determines whether to execute merging assistance control.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle control method and a vehicle control device that determines whether to execute merging assistance control, as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success to facilitate a driver to perform speed adjustment for changing lanes by acceleration operation when not executing merging assistance control, see Ito ¶6 for details.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, Bang, Komiyama, Hashimoto, and Ito, as per claim 5, and further in view of Chen et al., US-20190061755-A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen.
As per claim 7
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the restriction speed is set based on at least a length of the lane change section and to be lower as the length of the lane change section is shorter.
However, Chen teaches wherein the restriction speed is set based on at least a length of the lane change section and to be lower as the length of the lane change section is shorter (on-ramp data comprises a length of a roadway on-ramp…to derive a roadway speed limit based on the length, on-ramp data comprises data pertaining to parameters of an expressway on-ramp 43 (see FIG. 3)—i.e., a ramp used to enter an expressway from another roadway…ramp data includes a length (l) of the on-ramp 43 (e.g., from which the posted speed limit may be derived). For example, computer 14 may measure (e.g., using light detection and ranging devices,…the length (l) of a respective on-ramp 43, or computer 14 may determine the length (l) based on digital maps or the like - Chen ¶12 & ¶44 - Examiner reasons that as the lane changing area is shorter, the speed at which the vehicle should be traveling in the merging area should be shorter to increase the time the merging vehicle has to safely merge onto the main roadway).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Chen teaches a vehicle control system that determines ramp information.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle control system that determines ramp information, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the user experience by predictively initiating vehicle features which are presumed to aid the driver, see Chen ¶30 for details.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, Bang, Komiyama, Hashimoto, and Ito, as per claim 5, and further in view of Kwon et al., US-20210261144-A1, hereinafter referred to as Kwon.
As per claim 8
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the restriction speed is set according to whether or not a following vehicle is present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle, and the restriction speed is lower when the following vehicle is not present than when the following vehicle is present.
However, Kwon teaches wherein the restriction speed is set according to whether or not a following vehicle is present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle, and the restriction speed is lower when the following vehicle is not present than when the following vehicle is present (obstacle is present…behind the vehicle, the vehicle speed may be limited, and a maximum speed limit may be differently applied according to a distance to the obstacle, obstacles are determined as not being present, the abnormal acceleration prevention device 100 controls the abnormal acceleration prevention logic to not be operated (S42) - Kwon ¶15 & ¶53).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Kwon teaches a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, as taught by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success so that an injury caused due to mis-operation of a driver can be avoided, and reliability of a customer can be improved, see Kwon ¶66 for details.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto, as per claim 1, and further in view of Kwon.
As per claim 9
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the deceleration condition further includes that a following vehicle is not present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle.
However, Kwon teaches wherein the deceleration condition further includes that a following vehicle is not present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle (obstacle is present…behind the vehicle, the vehicle speed may be limited, and a maximum speed limit may be differently applied according to a distance to the obstacle, obstacles are determined as not being present, the abnormal acceleration prevention device 100 controls the abnormal acceleration prevention logic to not be operated (S42) - Kwon ¶15 & ¶53).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Kwon teaches a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, as taught by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success so that an injury caused due to mis-operation of a driver can be avoided, and reliability of a customer can be improved, see Kwon ¶66 for details.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amari, Bang, Komiyama, and Hashimoto, as per claim 1, and further in view of Kwon, and Okubo et al., US-20170129466-A1, hereinafter referred to as Okubo.
As per claim 10
Amari does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether or not a following vehicle is present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle.
However, Kwon teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether or not a following vehicle is present on the first lane within a first distance behind the vehicle (obstacle is present…behind the vehicle, the vehicle speed may be limited, and a maximum speed limit may be differently applied according to a distance to the obstacle, obstacles are determined as not being present, the abnormal acceleration prevention device 100 controls the abnormal acceleration prevention logic to not be operated (S42) - Kwon ¶15 & ¶53).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Kwon teaches a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a system and method for preventing abnormal acceleration of a vehicle due to mis-operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, as taught by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success so that an injury caused due to mis-operation of a driver can be avoided, and reliability of a customer can be improved, see Kwon ¶66 for details.
Amari does not specifically disclose start decelerating the vehicle earlier when the deceleration condition is satisfied and the following vehicle is present than when the following vehicle is not present.
However, Okubo teaches start decelerating the vehicle earlier when the deceleration condition is satisfied and the following vehicle is present than when the following vehicle is not present (following vehicle approaches the host vehicle,…activating a brake apparatus of the host vehicle at the brake force determined by the braking processing determination unit, determined in step S107 that a following vehicle has not been detected (i.e. No), determined in step S115 that deceleration for warning the following vehicle is underway (i.e. Yes), the following vehicle warning unit 106 halts the deceleration for warning the following vehicle (step S116) - Okubo ¶11 & ¶58 & ¶59).
Amari discloses a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section. Okubo teaches a vehicle collision prevention apparatus that activates an automatic brake on the basis of the likelihood of a collision between a host vehicle and a frontward obstruction.
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 invention of Amari, a vehicle control device, a vehicle control method, and a program each of which enables materialization of smoother traveling control in a junction section, with a vehicle collision prevention apparatus that activates an automatic brake on the basis of the likelihood of a collision between a host vehicle and a frontward obstruction, as taught by Okubo, with a reasonable expectation of success for preventing a collision between the host vehicle and the frontward obstruction on the basis of the likelihood of a front end collision, see Okubo ¶11 for details.
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 FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668