DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply, filed 16 September 2025, which was in response to the non-final action dated 18 June 2025.
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 Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 7 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended, claims 2, 3 and 4 have been canceled and claims 6 and 7 have been newly added.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 (pgs. 3-13, Action), applicant has amended the claims and contends that none of the cited references teach the newly amended limitations (pgs. 4-5, Reply). Applicant’s clarifying amendments, in particular, the “corresponding to a first driving force limitation”, which was not recited in any of canceled claims 2, 3 or 4, necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly the new grounds of rejection are: claim 1 in view of Okada, Dagh and Okada II; claim 5 in view of Okada, Katzourakis, Okada II; claim 6 in view of Okada, Katzourakis, Okada II and Moshchuk; and claim 7 in view of Okada, Katzourakis, Okada II and Moshchuk.
The rejection of claims 2, 3 and 4 have been rendered moot by their cancelation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted 16 September 2025 complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.197. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 Form is enclosed herewith.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2006/0052926 to Okada et al. (hereafter Okada) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0314590 to Dagh et al. (hereafter Dagh) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/ 0046844 to Okada et al. (hereafter Okada II).
As per claim 1, Okada discloses [a] vehicle control system that controls a vehicle based on an operation amount input (see at least Okada, Abstract, disclosing, A drive control apparatus for a vehicle includes: a follow-up control device; a stop hold device that is capable of holding the vehicle in a stopped state by controlling a brake pressure; and a driving operation detection device that detects at least one of a brake operation and a shift operation to a reverse or neutral position, wherein the follow-up control device cancels the holding of the vehicle in the stopped state by making the stop hold device cancel the holding of the vehicle in the stopped state after holding the vehicle in the stopped state for a predetermined time period or by making the stop hold device gradually reduce the brake pressure when the driving operation detection device detects at least one of the brake operation and the shift operation to the reverse or neutral position while the vehicle is held in the stopped stat) ... (1) ... , the vehicle control system comprising
one or more processors (see at least Okada, [0038] Referring to Figs. 1 and 2, a drive control apparatus 10 for a vehicle according to this embodiment is shown. As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the drive control apparatus 10 for a vehicle may include a control ECU (electrical control unit) 11 <interpreted as one or more processors>, a radar 12, a yaw rate sensor 13, a vehicle speed sensor 14, a wheel speed sensor 15, a throttle actuator 16, a brake actuator 17, a brake lamp 18, and an output device 19),
configured to execute a first process that determines a requested acceleration based on the operation amount input ... (see at least Okada, Fig. 4, showing step S07 Shift Lever: R and accelerator pedal on?; [0080]; [0081] disclosing that when this determination is evaluated as "YES," i.e., when it is determined that it is possible to hold the vehicle in the stopped state with a braking force that is generated according to the braking force requested by the driver even if the stop hold control that is currently executed is canceled, the flow proceeds to step S06 in which the OFF control is executed, and the series of processing is terminated; [0084]); ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... ,
wherein when a stop hold function that holds a stopped state of the vehicle is in operation, the one or more processors (see at least Okada, [0021] disclosing a drive control apparatus for a vehicle ... the predetermined commanded brake pressure may be a brake pressure that is sufficient that to hold the vehicle in the stopped state; [0047]) are configured to: ... (4) ... , ... (5) ... . But, Okada does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Dagh:
(1) control a vehicle based on an operation amount of input by a remote operator (see at least Dagh, [0042] the system 100 comprises lock response means 110 for providing an activation input or first signal as a response to at least said driver's seat door lock 400 being locked, and hold means 120 for actuating the parking brake 300 based on said first signal. The lock response means 110 and the hold means may communicate in different ways for transferring at least said first signal, e.g. wirelessly or by wire. Accordingly, the lock response means 110 may comprise an antenna circuit 130A for providing a wireless first signal or a communication line for transmitting said first signal or any combination thereof, and correspondingly the hold means 120 may be provided with the respective receiving means, e.g. another antenna circuit 130B; [0048] disclosing that FIG. 3 C illustrates an embodiment of the system according to the invention comprising lock response means 110 and hold means 120 for actuating said parking brake 300 in reaction to the central locking system 440 being actuated, i.e. all doors being locked, including the driver's door lock 400 by a conventional wireless remote-control locking and unlocking arrangement 140 externally from the vehicle 200, such as a conventional hand held, key-ring applicable push-button device. Otherwise, the system is similarly arranged as in FIG. 3B); and
(2) configured to execute a first process that determines a requested acceleration based on the operation amount input by the remote operator (see at least Dagh, [0042]; [0048]). But, neither Okada nor Dagh explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Okada II:
(3) wherein the first process includes calculating a first required acceleration corresponding to a first driving force, which is greater than 0, when the operation amount is 0 (see at least Okada II, [0032] disclosing that FIG. 2(a) illustrates a vehicle V stopped on an inclined road. The vehicle is going to start in the direction indicated by an arrow. That is, the vehicle is going to start in the front or forward direction. Let's assume that the inclination is too large for the vehicle to keep in stop state by a predetermined creep power that works on the vehicle; [0034] disclosing that In FIG. 2(b), stop state of the vehicle is held by braking force during time t0-t1. Driving force is maintained at a predetermined low value (creep power). Dotted line 111 indicates the driving force that is needed to balance the inclination. That is, in order to maintain the vehicle in the stop and hold state on an inclined road, a force needs to be applied to the vehicle that balances the gravity working on the vehicle. Dotted line 111 indicates the magnitude of driving force needed to hold the vehicle in the stop and hold state on this inclined road without braking force; [0035] disclosing that at time t1, the driver makes a start operation, responsive to which start control begins. According to the start control, when braking force is completely released (to 0) at time t2, driving force starts to increase. When the driving force reaches line 111, which is the driving force needed to balance with the inclination, the vehicle starts to move forward; [0049] disclosing that In step S18, determination is made if the braking force has become zero. If negative, the process returns to step S17 to continue braking force control. If positive, it means that the start control has completed. After that, movement control unit 15 increases the driving force gradually from the value of the target driving force (balancing power, the value of dotted line 111) as illustrated in FIG. 3(b) to gradually increase the vehicle speed, whereby the vehicle starts moving smoothly);
(4) continue the operation of the stop hold function when the requested acceleration determined by the first process is equal to or less than the first required acceleration (see at least Okada, [0049]); and
(5) cancel the operation of the stop hold function when the requested acceleration determined by the first process is higher than the first required acceleration (see at least Okada, [0049]).
Okada, Dagh and Okada II are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of controlling vehicles via remote operation. Okada relates to a drive control apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Okada, Abstract, [0002]). Dagh relates to a system for automatically actuating the parking brake on a vehicle (see at least Dagh, [0001]). Okada II relates to an apparatus and method for movement control of a vehicle (see Okada II, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system, as disclosed in Okada, to provide the benefit of (1) controlling the vehicle based on an operation amount of input by a remote operator, (2) executing a first process that determines a requested acceleration based on the operation amount input by the remote operator, as disclosed in Dagh, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing road safety by preventing a parked vehicle from rolling as a run-away, if the driver had not manually pulled the parking brake (see at least Dagh, [0006]). And further modifying Okada in view of Dagh to provide the benefit of (3) having the first process include calculating a first required acceleration corresponding to a first driving force, which is greater than 0, when the operation amount is 0, (4) continuing the operation of the stop hold function when the requested acceleration determined by the first process is equal to or less than the first required acceleration, and (5) canceling the operation of the stop hold function when the requested acceleration determined by the first process is higher than the first required acceleration, as disclosed in Okada II, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of causing the vehicle to start smoothly irrespective of the operation of the acceleration pedal (see at least Okada II, [0011]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Katzourakis.
As per claim 5, Okada discloses [a] control device mounted on a vehicle comprising a stop hold function that holds a stopped state of the vehicle (similar to claim 1, see at least Okada, Abstract),
the control device comprising one or more processors (similar to claim 1, see at least Okada, [0038]),
wherein the one or more processors are configured to: ... (1) ... ; and
execute a first process that determines a requested acceleration based on the received operation amount (see at least Okada, Fig. 4, showing step S07 Shift Lever: R and accelerator pedal on?; [0080]; [0081]; [0084]), the first process includes ... ... (2) ... , (3) ... ,
an operation of the stop hold function is canceled when the requested acceleration determined by the first process (see at least Okada, Fig. 4, showing step S07, shift lever: R and accelerator pedal on?; [0080]; [0081]; [0084]; [0122]) ... (4) ... . But Okada does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Katzourakis:
(1) receive an operation amount input by a remote operator from a remote cockpit (similar to claim 3, see at least Katzourakis, col. col. 15, ln. 52-col. 16, ln. 10, state 360 can be performed. The braking system controller 122 attempts to execute the state transition 370 when REMOTE_ROBOTIC_READY is set as the target state for the braking system 226. The braking system controller 122 determines whether to execute the state transition based on a group of state transition criteria. In this example, the braking system controller 122 inspects state transition variables to confirm that the brake booster is operational (BOOSTER_READY==1), that the master cylinder pressure is greater than or equal to a threshold (Master_Cylinder_Pressure>=MASTER_CYLINDER_PRESSURE_THR), that the brake pedal travel is less than or equal to a threshold (Brake_Pedal_Travel<=BRAKE_PEDAL_TRAVEL_THR), that the brake booster is able to accept external commands (BOOSTER_CONTROL==1), that the brake booster pressure is adequate to hold the vehicle 100 at a stop (Booster_Pressure>=BOOSTER_PRESSURE_HOLD), and that the vehicle speed is less than a threshold value required to enter the remote robotic ready state 360 <interpreted as the acceleration determined by the first process is equal to or less than a threshold value> (Vehicle_Speed<=VEHICLE_SPEED_RMT_THR). If all of the requisite conditions are satisfied, the braking system controller executes the state transition 370, exits the driver control state 354, and enters the remote robotic ready state 360) ... . But, neither Okada nor Katzourakis explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Okada II:
(2) calculating a first required acceleration to a first driving force (see at least Okada II, similar to claim 1, [0032]; [0034]; [0035]; [0049]),
(3) which is greater than 0, when the operation amount is 0 (see at least Okada II, [0049]); and
(4) the requested acceleration determined by the first process is greater than the first required acceleration (see at least Okada II, [0049]).
Okada, Katzourakis and Okada II are analogous art to claim 5 because they are in the same filed of controlling vehicles via remote operation. Okada relates to a drive control apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Okada, Abstract, [0002]). Katzourakis relates to a method for controlling a vehicle includes operating a braking system in robotic control state (see at least Katzourakis, abstract). Okada II relates to an apparatus and method for movement control of a vehicle (see Okada II, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device, as disclosed in Okada, to provide the benefit of receiving an operation amount input by a remote operator from a remote cockpit, as disclosed in Katzourakis, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of preventing a transition from the manual control state to the non-manual control state during the degraded operation mode (see at least Katzourakis, col. 2, ln. 20-25). And further modifying the control device, as disclosed in Okada and Katzourakis to provide the befit of calculating a first required acceleration to a first driving force which is greater than 0, when the operation amount is 0, and having the requested acceleration determined by the first process is greater than the first required acceleration, as disclosed in Okada II, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of causing the vehicle to start smoothly irrespective of the operation of the acceleration pedal (see at least Okada II, [0011]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, Dagh and Okada II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0257304 to Moshchuk et al. (hereafter Moshchuk).
As per claim 6, the combination of Okada, Dagh and Okada II discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Okada II further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute: cancel, when the stop hold function is in operation, the operation of the stop hold function when ... requested acceleration is greater than 0 (see at least Okada II, [0049]) ... . Dagh further discloses,
an automated requested acceleration (see at least Dagh, [0042]; [0048]). But neither Okada, Dagh nor Okada II explicitly disclose the following limitation disclosed in Moshchuk:
wherein the automated requested acceleration is a requested acceleration required for automated driving control of the vehicle (see at least Moshchuk, [0084] disclosing that the subject vehicle 10 has achieved the stop state in the brake-to-stop state 532, the subject vehicle 10 can transition to the hold-at-stop state 534 and transition to a park-brake-at-stop state 536 after a period of time. The subject vehicle 10 can transition to the move-away-from-stop state 540 when conditions warrant, such as in response to an acceleration command from the autonomous vehicle controller or an operator command for acceleration).
Okada, Dagh, Okada II and Moshchuk are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of controlling vehicles via remote operation. Okada relates to a drive control apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Okada, Abstract, [0002]). Dagh relates to a system for automatically actuating the parking brake on a vehicle (see at least Dagh, [0001]). Okada II relates to an apparatus and method for movement control of a vehicle (see Okada II, [0001]). Moshchuk relates to autonomous control of a subject vehicle including a longitudinal motion control system includes determining states of parameters associated with a trajectory for the subject vehicle and parameters associated with a control reference determined for the subject vehicle (see at least Moshchuk, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system, as disclosed in Okada, as modified by Dagh and Okada II, to provide the benefit of having the automated requested acceleration be a requested acceleration required for automated driving control of the vehicle, as disclosed in Moshchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy in achieving a stopped condition at a predefined location (see at least Moshchuk, [0003]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada, Katzourakis and Okada II as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Moshchuk.
As per claim 7, the combination of Okada, Katzourakis and Okada II discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Okada II further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute: cancel, when the stop hold function is in operation, the operation of the stop hold function when ... requested acceleration is greater than 0 (see at least Okada II, [0049]) ... . Dagh further discloses,
an automated requested acceleration (see at least Dagh, [0042]; [0048]). But neither Okada, Dagh nor Okada II explicitly disclose the following limitation disclosed in Moshchuk:
wherein the automated requested acceleration is a requested acceleration required for automated driving control of the vehicle (similar to claim 6, see at least Moshchuk, [0084]).
Okada, Katzourakis, Okada II and Moshchuk are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of controlling vehicles via remote operation. Okada relates to a drive control apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Okada, Abstract, [0002]). Katzourakis relates to a method for controlling a vehicle includes operating a braking system in robotic control state (see at least Katzourakis, abstract). Okada II relates to an apparatus and method for movement control of a vehicle (see Okada II, [0001]). Moshchuk relates to autonomous control of a subject vehicle including a longitudinal motion control system includes determining states of parameters associated with a trajectory for the subject vehicle and parameters associated with a control reference determined for the subject vehicle (see at least Moshchuk, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle control system, as disclosed in Okada, as modified by Katzourakis and Okada II, to provide the benefit of having the automated requested acceleration be a requested acceleration required for automated driving control of the vehicle, as disclosed in Moshchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the accuracy in achieving a stopped condition at a predefined location (see at least Moshchuk, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Both disclosing remote operation, U.S. Patent Publication Numbers 2021/0039680 to Kindo et al. (hereafter Kindo) at [0028]; and 2024/0132029 to Nose et al. (hereafter Nose) at [0036].
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666