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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of Remarks, field on 06/26/2025, , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues Isomoto does not teach “the branch path detection unit configured to detect whether the branch path is present in front of the own vehicle”. In response to applicant’s argument, Fig. 4, step Q6 clearly teaches detect whether the branch path is present in front of the own vehicle. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the features of “a target acceleration calculation unit…” and “the preceding vehicle is a stopped preceding vehicle” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga et al. (US 2013/0297172 A1) in view of Isomoto et al. (US 2018/0273089 A1) and Kudo (US 2021/0387622 A1).
As to claims 1 and 5, Ariga discloses a driving support device for supporting driving of an own vehicle, the driving support device comprising: an inter-vehicle distance detection unit configured to detect an inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle present in front of the own vehicle (Fig. 2, S10); a deceleration control unit (deceleration unit 12) configured to perform deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle based on the inter-vehicle distance detected by the inter-vehicle distance detection unit (Abstract); determine whether a driver of the own vehicle intends to change a route to next lane based on an operation state of a turn signal (Fig. 2, S14) of the own vehicle and a steering state of a steering wheel (Fig. 2, S16) of the own vehicle operated by the driver in a case where a lane change detection unit detects that the next lane (Fig. 2, S18) is present in front of the own vehicle while the deceleration control unit executes the deceleration control (Fig. 2, S26) of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle, the operation state being acquired by an operation state acquisition unit, the steering state being acquired by a steering state acquisition unit, and terminate the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle in a case where determination is made that the driver intends to change the route to the next lane (Fig. 2, S20); the next lane detection unit configured to detect whether the next lane is present in front of the own vehicle (Fig. S18); an operation state acquisition unit configured to acquire the operation state of a turn signal of the own vehicle (Fig. 2, S14, para. 0037); and a steering state acquisition unit (Fig. 2, S16, para. 0038) configured to acquire the steering state of a steering wheel of the own vehicle operated by a driver of the own vehicle, a target acceleration calculation unit configured to calculate a target acceleration of the own vehicle based on the inter-vehicle distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle, determine whether the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle is to be performed (Fig. 2, S26, brake control intervention process). Ariga does not disclose the next lane is a branch path and the target acceleration calculation unit determines that the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle is to be performed, wherein the preceding vehicle is a stopped preceding vehicle. However, Isomoto teaches a branch path detection unit for detecting whether a branch path is present in front of the own vehicle (Fig. 4, Q6 and para. 0041); wherein the control unit determines whether the driver intends to change a route to the branch path based on the operation state of the turn signal acquired by the operation state acquisition unit and the steering state of the steering wheel acquired by the steering state acquisition unit when the branch path detection unit detects that the branch path is present in front of the own vehicle while vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle when determination is made that the driver intends to change the route to the branch path (Fig. 4, para. 0048). The branch path is the next lane and changing the route to the branch path is also considered as changing to next lane. Therefore, given the teaching of Isomoto, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ariga, by incorporating the feature of determine the driver intends to change the route/lane to the branch path/lane, to enable the vehicle to avoid unnecessary deceleration when the driver intends to change lane to the branch lane/path. And deceleration to stop own vehicle while maintaining the inter-vehicle distance between own vehicle and preceding vehicle when the preceding vehicle is stopped is widely being use on adaptive cruise control as well as collision avoidance, such as Kudo teaches the target acceleration calculation unit determines that the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle is to be performed, wherein the preceding vehicle is a stopped preceding vehicle (para. 0045). Therefore, given the teaching of Kudo, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ariga, by incorporating the feature of decelerate to stop own vehicle to maintain inter-vehicle distance when preceding vehicle is stopped, to avoid collision.
As to claim 2, Isomoto further teaches wherein the deceleration control unit is configured to determine that the driver intends to change the route to the branch path in a case where a direction indicated by the turn signal and a steering direction of the steering wheel are the same direction as a branch direction of the branch path (Fig. 4, para. 0048).
As to claim 5, Ariga further teaches determine whether a first direction and a second direction are the same direction as a third direction (Fig. 2, S14 and S16), the first direction being a direction indicated by the turn signal, the second direction being a steering direction of the steering wheel (Fig. 2, S14 and S16), and the third direction being a direction of the next lane; and determine that the driver intends to change the route to the next lane in a case where the first direction and the second direction are the same direction as the third direction (Fig. 2, S14-S16) and Isomoto also teaches next lane is branch path (Fig. 4, Q6, in the same direction of turn signal and steering angle direction).
As to claims 3 and 7, Ariga further teaches wherein determining changing to next lane when a steering amount of the steering wheel is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (Fig. 2, S16), and Isomoto further teaches determines that the driver intends to change the route to the branch path based on steering angle (para. 0048).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ariga, Isomoto and Kudo, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lee (US 2017/0050627 A1).
As to claim 4, Ariga, Isomoto and Kudo do not explicitly teach output a signal indicating that the own vehicle stops to the target acceleration calculation unit in a case where the own vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle and the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle is continuously performed. However, Lee teaches output a signal indicating that the own vehicle stops to the target acceleration calculation unit in a case where the own vehicle approaches the preceding vehicle and the deceleration control of the own vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle is continuously performed (para. 0006). Therefore, given the teaching of Lee, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ariga, Isomoto and Kudo, by incorporating the feature of signal indicating emergency stop due to preceding vehicle stops, to alert the driver of emergency braking is being perform due to preceding vehicle stops in front of own vehicle.
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 Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661