Did not see an announcement, think it was just slow
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2022-191531, filed on 11/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are currently amended.
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) 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adiprasito et al. (US 20230382377 A1), herein after will be referred to as Adiprasito, and in view of Kashefy et al. (US 20210221369 A1), herein after will be referred to as Kashefy.
Regarding Claim 1, Adiprasito teaches a vehicle driving assistance apparatus, comprising an electronic control unit configured to execute (Vehicle containing an electronic control unit configured to execute driving assistance functions; [0049-0050] [0061-0062]):
a first control to display a first image by a displaying device, the first image being an image which displays traffic information on a place where a vehicle will move (Display element on the display unit shows the traffic light color/signaling unit state relevant to the vehicle’s planned direction of travel; [0077] [0104]); and
a second control including an autonomous deceleration control to autonomously decelerate the vehicle in response to the traffic information (aUCC driving function performs automated braking/deceleration at detected signaling units in response to their signaling state; [0021] [0103]),
, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: render the second control valid or invalid (aUCC/mUCC mode selection constitutes rendering the autonomous deceleration control valid or invalid. Both modes describe a binary state selection for whether the system will autonomously execute deceleration; [0080]),
wherein when an operator of the vehicle requests execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be valid (aUCC mode is activated when the driver configures/selects the automatic mode via the user interface; [0026] [0106]),
and when the operator of the vehicle does not request execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be invalid (mUCC mode operates when the driver has not configured automatic mode. The system does not automatically execute deceleration but offers it. The operator’s choice not to select automatic mode (or select manual mode) constitutes “not requesting execution” which leaves the autonomous deceleration control in an effectively “invalid” state. The system will not brake automatically unless the driver separately confirms each individual offer; [0027]);
start to display the first image at a predetermined valid-state point of time in a situation where the second control is rendered valid (In aUCC, the display of traffic signaling information is triggered when the vehicle reaches a predetermined output threshold distance. The point in time at which the threshold distance is undershot constitutes as the “predetermined valid-state point of time” where the system begins to show traffic information at the defined proximity to the signaling unit; [0126-0128]); and
start to display the first image at a predetermined invalid-state point of time in a situation where the second control is rendered invalid (In the mUCC or when automatic assistance is unavailable, the system outputs unavailability notifications to the driver; [0089] [0084]).
Adiprasito does not explicitly teach the predetermined invalid-state point of time is earlier than the predetermined valid-state point of time.
However, Kashefy discloses a vehicle distance warning and signaling system that generates warning pulses to support Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB). Kashefy teaches that the warning time should be calibrated to provide the driver with sufficient reaction time to respond to hazards. Specifically, that “the most efficient threshold values of Time-to-Collision (TTC) seems to be 2.5 ad 3 seconds. These results should be considered for the development of Collision Avoidance Systems” ([0058]), and “The TCC that results from the value wD is proportional to established perception-reaction time (prT) of following drivers (about 1.5s)” ([0073]). Kashefy further teaches staged warnings at progressively shorter distances (STTC-1, STTC-2, STTC-3), wherein “Providing the STTC-1 pulse as brake and steer input control reference pulse for the AEB on the onset of the first stage of the calculated unsafe forward distance so that the AEB can autonomously decided how and when to apply brake and/or steer pressure” ([0114-0117]), establishing the principle for earlier warnings (at greater distances) provides more time for responsive actions.
Adiprasito and Kashefy are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle safety systems and address how to calibrate the timing of driver warnings/displays relative to the approach/speed for the driver’s safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adiprasito’s dual mode UCC system to display the traffic information image at an earlier point of time in the mUCC mode than in the aUCC mode in view of Kashefy’s teaching that warning timing should be calibrated to the driver’s need for independent reaction time based a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation of Adiprasito recognizing that when the automated braking function is unavailable, the driver bears full responsibility for collision avoidance and needs timely notification, establishing the system distinguishes between driver responsibility between the two modes ([0139] [0147]). Furthermore, Kashefy’s teaching of earlier warning times provides a critical safety benefit by increasing available perception-reaction time ([0057-0058] [0073]). This provides the benefit of improving operational safety of the vehicle by notifying the driver in advanced to allow for a safe and controlled deceleration of the vehicle and braking operation.
Regard Claim 2, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Adiprasito further teaches the vehicle driving assistance apparatus comprises a detection section which detects the traffic information on the place where the vehicle will move (The environmental sensors and control unit functions to detect a section where the vehicle will move like traffic information ahead of the vehicle; [0061] [0167]),
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to execute one of the first control and the second control, based on a first area distance between the vehicle and a first area shown by the traffic information after the electronic control unit detects the traffic information (The control unit executing the first control (display an image) based on the distance from the detected traffic information; [0039] [0126-0128]),
wherein the electronic control unit is configured to: start to display the first image at a point of time when the first area distance reaches a predetermined valid-state distance (The system begins the display output when the spatial distance to the signaling unit reaches the threshold value; [0126]); and
start to display the first image at a point of time when the first area distance reaches a predetermined invalid-state distance (The period/distance threshold value for manual braking of the vehicle by the driver to output; [0084] [0091] [0116]);
Adiprasito does not explicitly teach the predetermined invalid-state distance is longer than the predetermined valid-state distance.
However, Kashefy discloses a vehicle distance warning and signaling system that calculates unsafe distances to generate warning pulses. Kashey teaches the principle of the warning timing should be calibrated to provide the driver with sufficient perception-reaction time, “the most efficient threshold values of TTC seems to be 2.5 and 3 s. These results should be considered for the development of Collision Avoidance Systems” and “The TTC that results from the value wD is proportional to established perception-reaction time (prT) of the following drivers (about 1.5 s)” ([0058] [0073]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because the invalid-state needs to account for the perception-reaction time of the driver and the unsafe distance. This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because it established that when a driver must independently perceive and react (as in the invalid/manual state), the warning trigger must be at a greater distance than in the valid/automatic state. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Adiprasito’s output threshold values to incorporate the teachings of the warning timing and distance as taught by Kashefy based on the motivation to notify the driver with sufficient distance for braking when the autonomous system is unavailable. This modification would predictably result in the invalid-state display being triggered at a greater/longer distance (farther from the signaling unit) than the valid-state distance.
Regarding Claim 3, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 2. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to: acquire a predicted reaching period of time as a parameter which represents the first area distance, the predicted reaching period of time being a period of time predicted for the vehicle to take to reach the first area (The system calculates a period before reaching the signaling unit and using it as a parameter for decisions; [0113-0116]); start to display the first image at a point of time when the predicted reaching period of time reaches a predetermined valid-state period of time in the situation where the second control is rendered valid (The automatic mode communicate is triggered at a specific time required for braking; [0098] [0103]); and start to display the first image at a point of time when the predicted reaching period of time reaches a predetermined invalid-state period of time in the situation where the second control is rendered invalid (The manual mode display at a decision time to allow for driver reaction; [0098] [0156]).
Adiprasito does not explicitly teach the predetermined invalid-state period of time is longer than the predetermined valid-state period of time.
However, Kashefy discloses a collision warning system that utilizes Time-to-Collision (TTC) calculations to differentiate between the driver warning needs and autonomous braking triggers. Kashefy teaches setting a warning threshold at a higher threshold of the unsafe distance while the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system utilizes a short pre-set TTC ([0027] [0058] [0114]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because a warning issue in advanced of the AEB activation corresponds to a longer TTC value in the invalid state period than the shorter pre-set TTC value in the valid-state period used for the automatic braking. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Adiprasito to incorporate the teachings of setting the warning time threshold for manual reaction to be longer period than the threshold time for actuating the brakes as taught by Kashefy based on the motivation to provide the driver with a longer time period to react when the autonomous control is invalid. This provides the benefit of optimizing the safety of the system by allowing more time at the predetermined invalid-state and accounting for human reaction.
Regarding Claim 4, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 3. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to execute the second control to execute the autonomous deceleration control after the electronic control unit starts to display one of the first image and a second image relating to the second control (The sequential process of displaying the traffic signal information and/or the offer to the driver, then executing the automated braking if accepted or if in automatic mode. The display precedes the deceleration in both mUCC and aUCC. The “offer” display constitutes the second image relating to the second control; [0104] [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 4. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to display the first image after the electronic control unit starts displaying the second image in the situation where the second control is rendered valid (In the aUCC automatic mode, the driving function status (inactive or active) is displayed first to show the function is active and the signaling unit information appears as the vehicle approaches the signaling unit; [0077] [0103] [0126]).
Regarding Claim 10, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 4. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit detects the traffic information including first traffic information and second traffic information different from the first traffic information (The detection of “plurality of signal groups” are different pieces of traffic information; [0093]) and displays the second image (The system’s action of displaying a second image related to the deceleration of the vehicle; [0103]), the electronic control unit is configured to display the first image showing the first traffic information (The first image relating to traffic information in the form of a stop sign or red traffic light displayed to the driver through the user interface and screen; [0156]) and wherein the second traffic information has a higher priority of being displayed by the displaying device than the first traffic information (Determining which of the plurality of signal groups is relevant to the vehicle and displaying the relevant signal ([0157]). Different signaling unit types receive different deceleration profiles establishing a priority where a light signal installation has higher priority than a traffic sign ([0042])).
Regarding Claim 11, Adiprasito teaches a vehicle driving assistance method for executing (Vehicle containing an electronic control unit configured to execute driving assistance functions; [0049-0050] [0061-0062]):
a first control to display a first image by a displaying device, the first image being an image which displays traffic information on a place where a vehicle will move (Display element on the display unit shows the traffic light color/signaling unit state relevant to the vehicle’s planned direction of travel; [0077] [0104]); and
a second control including an autonomous deceleration control to autonomously decelerate the vehicle in response to the traffic information (aUCC driving function performs automated braking/deceleration at detected signaling units in response to their signaling state; [0021] [0103]), wherein the vehicle driving assistance method comprises steps of: starting to display the first image at a predetermined valid-state point of time in a situation where the second control is rendered valid (In aUCC, the display of traffic signaling information is triggered when the vehicle reaches a predetermined output threshold distance. The point in time at which the threshold distance is undershot constitutes as the “predetermined valid-state point of time” where the system begins to show traffic information at the defined proximity to the signaling unit; [0126-0128]); and
starting to display the first image at a predetermined invalid-state point of time…in a situation where the second control is rendered invalid (In the mUCC or when automatic assistance is unavailable, the system outputs unavailability notifications to the driver; [0089] [0084]), and
wherein when an operator of the vehicle requests execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be valid (aUCC mode is activated when the driver configures/selects the automatic mode via the user interface; [0026] [0106]),
and when the operator of the vehicle does not request execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be invalid (mUCC mode operates when the driver has not configured automatic mode. The system does not automatically execute deceleration but offers it. The operator’s choice not to select automatic mode (or select manual mode) constitutes “not requesting execution” which leaves the autonomous deceleration control in an effectively “invalid” state. The system will not brake automatically unless the driver separately confirms each individual offer; [0027])
Adiprasito does not explicitly teach the predetermined invalid-state point of time earlier than the predetermined valid-state point of time.
However, Kashefy discloses a vehicle distance warning and signaling system that generates warning pulses to support Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB). Kashefy teaches that the warning time should be calibrated to provide the driver with sufficient reaction time to respond to hazards. Specifically, that “the most efficient threshold values of Time-to-Collision (TTC) seems to be 2.5 ad 3 seconds. These results should be considered for the development of Collision Avoidance Systems” ([0058]), and “The TCC that results from the value wD is proportional to established perception-reaction time (prT) of following drivers (about 1.5s)” ([0073]). Kashefy further teaches staged warnings at progressively shorter distances (STTC-1, STTC-2, STTC-3), wherein “Providing the STTC-1 pulse as brake and steer input control reference pulse for the AEB on the onset of the first stage of the calculated unsafe forward distance so that the AEB can autonomously decide how and when to apply brake and/or steer pressure” ([0114-0117]), establishing the principle for earlier warnings (at greater distances) provides more time for responsive actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adiprasito’s dual mode UCC system to display the traffic information image at an earlier point of time in the mUCC mode than in the aUCC mode in view of Kashefy’s teaching that warning timing should be calibrated to the driver’s need for independent reaction time based a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation of Adiprasito recognizing that when the automated braking function is unavailable, the driver bears full responsibility for collision avoidance and needs timely notification, establishing the system distinguishes between driver responsibility between the two modes ([0139] [0147]). Furthermore, Kashefy’s teaching of earlier warning times provides a critical safety benefit by increasing available perception-reaction time ([0057-0058] [0073]). This provides the benefit of improving operational safety of the vehicle by notifying the driver in advanced to allow for a safe and controlled deceleration of the vehicle and braking operation.
Regarding Claim 12, Adiprasito teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a vehicle driving assistance program which executes (A storage medium to execute software program for a method for an automated longitudinal guidance for a vehicle; [0050] [0051]):
a first control to display a first image by a displaying device, the first image being an image which displays traffic information on a place where a vehicle will move (Display element on the display unit shows the traffic light color/signaling unit state relevant to the vehicle’s planned direction of travel; [0077] [0104]); and
a second control including an autonomous deceleration control to autonomously decelerate the vehicle in response to the traffic information (aUCC driving function performs automated braking/deceleration at detected signaling units in response to their signaling state; [0021] [0103]), wherein the vehicle driving assistance program is configured to: start to display the first image at a predetermined invalid-state point of time…in a situation where the second control is rendered valid (The traffic information symbol is displayed in the mUCC or invalid mode by a predefined output distance; [0156] [0098] [0128] [0116]),
wherein when an operator of the vehicle requests execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be valid (aUCC mode is activated when the driver configures/selects the automatic mode via the user interface; [0026] [0106]),
and when the operator of the vehicle does not request execution of the autonomous deceleration control, the second control is set to be invalid (mUCC mode operates when the driver has not configured automatic mode. The system does not automatically execute deceleration but offers it. The operator’s choice not to select automatic mode (or select manual mode) constitutes “not requesting execution” which leaves the autonomous deceleration control in an effectively “invalid” state. The system will not brake automatically unless the driver separately confirms each individual offer; [0027]).
Adiprasito does not explicitly teach the predetermined invalid-state point of time earlier than a predetermined valid-state point of time.
However, Kashefy discloses a vehicle distance warning and signaling system that generates warning pulses to support Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB). Kashefy teaches that the warning time should be calibrated to provide the driver with sufficient reaction time to respond to hazards. Specifically, that “the most efficient threshold values of Time-to-Collision (TTC) seems to be 2.5 ad 3 seconds. These results should be considered for the development of Collision Avoidance Systems” ([0058]), and “The TCC that results from the value wD is proportional to established perception-reaction time (prT) of following drivers (about 1.5s)” ([0073]). Kashefy further teaches staged warnings at progressively shorter distances (STTC-1, STTC-2, STTC-3), wherein “Providing the STTC-1 pulse as brake and steer input control reference pulse for the AEB on the onset of the first stage of the calculated unsafe forward distance so that the AEB can autonomously decide how and when to apply brake and/or steer pressure” ([0114-0117]), establishing the principle for earlier warnings (at greater distances) provides more time for responsive actions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adiprasito’s dual mode UCC system to display the traffic information image at an earlier point of time in the mUCC mode than in the aUCC mode in view of Kashefy’s teaching that warning timing should be calibrated to the driver’s need for independent reaction time based a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation of Adiprasito recognizing that when the automated braking function is unavailable, the driver bears full responsibility for collision avoidance and needs timely notification, establishing the system distinguishes between driver responsibility between the two modes ([0139] [0147]). Furthermore, Kashefy’s teaching of earlier warning times provides a critical safety benefit by increasing available perception-reaction time ([0057-0058] [0073]). This provides the benefit of improving operational safety of the vehicle by notifying the driver in advanced to allow for a safe and controlled deceleration of the vehicle and braking operation.
Regarding Claim 13, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Adiprasito further teaches the predetermined invalid-state point of time is a point of time when the traffic information is detected (The display of an offer upon the signaling unit being detected in manual mode; [0027] [0091]), and wherein in a situation where the second control is rendered valid, the electronic control unit does not display the first image at the point of time when the traffic information is detected (Automatic braking is initiated without the display offer in the automatic mode; [0103]).
Claim 6-8 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adiprasito in view of Kashefy, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20250256718 A1), herein after will be referred to as Matsunaga.
Regarding Claim 6, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 5. Adiprasito further teaches that the driver of the vehicle overrides the automated longitudinal guidance by actuating the accelerator pedal ([0169]). Adiprasito further teaches the UCC driving function is dropped if a deflection relating to the accelerator pedal and time information of the actuation of the acceleration pedal exceeds a threshold ([0174-179]). Furthermore, Adipasito teaches that the “driving function is not dropped if a traffic light is detected while the accelerator pedal is depressed. Unreactive driving through the traffic light can therefore be reliably prevented.” ([0185]). These teachings establish the system detecting the driver’s non-compliance of the system’s output and provides an alert for “the driver’s attentiveness can be checked…If the driver is detected as inattentive, it is possible to output an acoustic gong which makes the driver aware that no braking is being carried out by the UCC driving function and a driver reaction is necessary under certain circumstances.” ([0147]). This establishes the system detects the driver’s non-compliance and outputs an alert. When the automated braking proceeds, the system communicates the braking initiation to the driver via instrument cluster ([0103]).
Adiprasito and Kashefy does not explicitly teach the sequence and triggering of start to display the first image when an operator of the vehicle does not release an acceleration operation after the electronic control unit starts displaying the second image in the situation where the second control is rendered valid; and start to execute the autonomous deceleration control when the operator of the vehicle releases the acceleration operation after the electronic control unit starts displaying the first image in the situation where the second control rendered valid.
However, Matsunaga discloses a travel assistance device and method that decelerates the subject vehicle at stop positions that uses the driver’s accelerator state as a controlling variable for deceleration and display output ([0064] [0022]). Matsunaga teaches that when acceleration is performed, the controller cancels the deceleration control ([0048]) and that the setting of the stop candidate position is cancelled while the driver maintains the acceleration where the system notifies the driver of the cancellation state via display output ([0058]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation start to display the first image when an operator of the vehicle does not release an acceleration operation after the electronic control unit starts displaying the second image in the situation where the second control is rendered valid because when the driver does not release the accelerator, the system’s autonomous deceleration is overridden and triggers a display notification output, which corresponds to displaying the first image (traffic information) as a warning to alert the driver. Furthermore, Matsunaga teaches that when the accelerator operation is not performed, the controller executes the deceleration control to stop the vehicle before the stop candidate position ([0028] [0064]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation start to execute the autonomous deceleration control when the operator of the vehicle releases the acceleration operation after the electronic control unit starts displaying the first image in the situation where the second control rendered valid because it establishes that the accelerator pedal is not in operation (driver releases the accelerator) and the deceleration of the vehicle proceeds.
Adiprasito, Kashefy, and Matsunaga are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the similar field of vehicle driving assistance systems. Therefore, 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 combination of Adiprasito and Kashefy to incorporate the teachings of Matsunaga’s teaching that the accelerator operational state determines the deceleration of the vehicle and the display output based on the motivation that the system should respond to the driver’s operational intent to override the deceleration operation. This modification would provide the benefit of allowing the driver to override the system when needed.
Regarding Claim 7, Adiprasito, Kashefy, and Matsunaga remains as applied above in Claim 6. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to display an image of recommending that the operator releases the acceleration operation as the second image (When the accelerator pedal is depressed at a detected traffic light to override the automated UCC driving function, the system may maintain the driving function deceleration to prevent “unreactive driving through the traffic light can therefore be reliably prevented” which requires informing the driver of the corrective actions needed to release the accelerator override ([0185] [0169]). Adiprasito further teaches prompting the driver via takeover request (TOR) and attention alerts ([0085] [0147]). Displaying a recommendation to release the accelerator is an obvious specific content of the TOR and attention prompt in the accelerator override context in Adiprasito).
Regarding Claim 8, Adiprasito, Kashefy, and Matsunaga remains as applied above in Claim 6. Adiprasito further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to execute the second control to (i) display a third image relating the second control (Displaying an image to communicate that the automated braking has been initiated; [0103]), (ii) execute the autonomous deceleration control (Execution of the deceleration; [0062] [0103]).
Adiprasito and Kashefy does not explicitly teach (iii) not display the first image when the operator of the vehicle has released the acceleration operation.
However, Matsunaga further teaches that when the accelerator operation is not performed, the deceleration control continues and the vehicle stops before the stop candidate position ([0028] [0064]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation does not display the first image when the operator releases the acceleration operation before the predetermined valid-state point of time because when the accelerator is not operated or released, the deceleration proceeds automatically without requiring the driver notification. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Adiprasito and Kashefy to incorporate the teachings of the accelerator state suppressing the display notification to the driver as taught in Matsunaga based on the motivation that would predictably result in the notification alert to the driver of the approaching stop to suppress the first image when the driver releases the accelerator before the valid-state point of time because the system automatically decelerates and no warning is necessary.
Regarding Claim 14, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 1. Adiprasito further teaches that the driver of the vehicle overrides the automated longitudinal guidance by actuating the accelerator pedal ([0169]). Adiprasito further teaches the UCC driving function is dropped if a deflection relating to the accelerator pedal and time information of the actuation of the acceleration pedal exceeds a threshold ([0174-179]). Furthermore, Adipasito teaches that the “driving function is not dropped if a traffic light is detected while the accelerator pedal is depressed. Unreactive driving through the traffic light can therefore be reliably prevented.” ([0185]). These teachings establish the system detecting the driver’s non-compliance of the system’s output and provides an alert for “the driver’s attentiveness can be checked…If the driver is detected as inattentive, it is possible to output an acoustic gong which makes the driver aware that no braking is being carried out by the UCC driving function and a driver reaction is necessary under certain circumstances.” ([0147]). This establishes the system detects the driver’s non-compliance and outputs an alert. When the automated braking proceeds, the system communicates the braking initiation to the driver via instrument cluster ([0103]).
Adiprasito and Kashefy does not explicitly teach the sequence and triggering of displays the first image when an operator of the vehicle does not release an acceleration operation, and does not display the first image when the operator releases the acceleration operation before the predetermined valid-state point of time.
However, Matsunaga teaches that when the accelerator operation is performed, the controller cancels the deceleration control and notifies the driver via the presentation device ([0048] [0058]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of displays the first image when an operator of the vehicle does not release an acceleration operation because the accelerator state triggers the visual notification to the driver via presentation device. Matsunaga further teaches that when the accelerator operation is not performed, the deceleration control continues and the vehicle stops before the stop candidate position ([0028] [0064]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation does not display the first image when the operator releases the acceleration operation before the predetermined valid-state point of time because when the accelerator is not operated, the deceleration proceeds automatically without requiring the driver notification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Adiprasito and Kashefy to incorporate the teachings of the accelerator state triggering the display notification to the driver as taught in Matsunaga based on the motivation that Adiprasito requires unreactive driving through a traffic light to be reliably prevented ([0185]) and Matsunaga provides the mechanism of notifying the driver of the deceleration cancellation via display output ([0058]). This modification would predictably result in displaying the first image when the driver does not release the accelerator in the valid state to alert the driver of the approaching stop and then suppressing the first image when the driver releases the accelerator before the valid-state point of time because the system proceeds with automated deceleration and no warning is necessary.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adiprasito in view of Kashefy, as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Igarashi et al. (US 20130194086 A1), herein after will be referred to as Igarashi.
Regarding Claim 9, Adiprasito and Kashefy remains as applied above in Claim 1. The prior art combination does not explicitly teach wherein when the electronic control unit detects the traffic information in a situation where the second control is requested to be executed, the predetermined valid-state point of time when a realization index value is equal to or greater than a predetermined index value is later than the predetermined valid-state point of time when the realization index value is smaller than the predetermined index value, wherein the realization index value is an index value which represents a probability that the operator of the vehicle has realized a place where the vehicle is required to be decelerated, and the realization index value is greater when luminance outside the vehicle is greater than when the luminance is smaller, and wherein the predetermined great-index-value point of time is later than the predetermined small-index-value point of time.
However, Igarashi discloses a vehicle driving assistance system that adjusts driving assist intervention based on outside illuminance as a proxy for the driver’s ability to perceive and recognize objects. Igarashi teaches that outside illuminance directly determines the driver’s ability to recognize objects by the amount of enlargement detected and explicitly states when “…the illuminance is low, it is more difficult for the driver to see and recognize the object…” and “…as the illuminance is lower, it is possible to notify the driver of the presence of an object which the driver has a difficulty in seeing and recognizing…” ([0022]) and correlates the enlargement with the system’s timing ([0074]). Igarashi further teaches that the measurement of illuminance is objected from the exterior of the vehicle ([0087]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “realization index value is an index value which represents a probability that the operator of the vehicle has realized a place where the vehicle is required to be decelerated, and the realization index value is greater when illuminance outside the vehicle is greater than when the illuminance is smaller” and “the predetermined great-index-value point of time is later than the predetermined small-index-value point of time” because high illuminance allows the driver to see and recognize objects more easily making the timing of intervention later while low illuminance makes it “more difficult for the driver to see and recognize objects” corresponding to the probability of driver realization is lower for an earlier timing of intervention. The illuminance measured by the system is measured from the exterior of the vehicle. Furthermore, Igarashi teaches that increasing the amount of enlargement with a high vehicle speed makes the intervention timing earlier ([0074]). This timing is directly tied to the enlarged object’s boundary and vehicle’s course for timing of the driving assist operation ([0082]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the predetermined valid-state point of time when a realization index value is equal to or greater than a predetermined index value is later than the predetermined valid-state point of time when the realization index value is smaller than the predetermined index value” because high illuminance (greater realization index) produces less enlargement which results in a later intervention timing and low illuminance (small realization index) produces more enlargement resulting in earlier intervention timing ([0022] [0074]).
Adiprasito, Kashefy, and Igarashi are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle driving assistance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Adiprasito and Kashefy to incorporate the teachings of adjusting the driving assistance system based on the illuminance as an indicator for the driver’s recognition as taught in Igarashi based on the motivation to account for reduced driver visibility in low light conditions. This modification would predictably result in the display timing being adjusted based on outside illuminance; when luminance is high, the driver visibility is high and the valid-state display timing is later and when the luminance is low, the driver visibility is low and the display timing is earlier.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Fukui (US 20230166727 A1)
Pawlicki (US 20160257308 A1)
Endo (US 20240109521 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9-10, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the Final rejection has been considered and the rejection has been withdrawn. The current action is a Non-Final Office Action examining the after-final amended claims 1, 11, and 12 and remaining pending claims in the application.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 03/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 has been fully considered.
The Applicant has alleged Kashefy’s autonomous emergency braking (AEB) does not disclose, teach, or suggest varying the image display timing depending in whether autonomous deceleration control is rendered valid or invalid. It appears that the applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the office action mailed 01/15/2026, Kashefy is relied upon solely for the warning timing provided to the driver for sufficient perception-reaction time allowing for the driver to react in a timely manner. Adiprasito was used for the valid-state and invalid-state of the aUCC and mUCC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights