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
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/14/2023, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to claim 1 overcomes the objection due to informalities. The objection with respect to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/14/2023, with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amendment to claim 1 overcomes the objection by adding features of cancelled dependent claim 3 to independent claim 1 (i.e. control the vehicle to decelerate in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance). The amendment adds practical application to the abstract idea. The rejection with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot. Amended independent claim 1 necessitates new grounds of rejection (e.g. calculate a distance between the vehicle and the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance in response to determining that the occurrence position is on the travel route of the vehicle).
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20230347892 A1; hereafter Sugiyama) in view of Mase et al. (US 20090256722 A1; hereafter Mase).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches vehicle control device mounted on a vehicle (see at least, Fig 1, [0033] The driving ECU 14 is a control unit configured to perform overall control of the drive assist apparatus 1), the vehicle control device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor (see at least, [0144] At least one processor can be configured, by reading instructions from at least one machine readable tangible medium ) to acquire a road map information (see at least, Fig 1, [0048] the road mapDB 36b outputs, as driving environment information, road map information in a set range with respect to the vehicle position measured by the GNSS sensor 36a to the driving_ECU 14), position information indicating a position of the vehicle (see at least, Fig 1, [0047] The GNSS sensor 36a measures the position (latitude, longitude, and altitude) of the vehicle M), a travel direction of the vehicle (see at least, [0053] the millimeter wave radar mainly detects three-dimensional objects such as vehicles driving along or behind the vehicle M …relative
position with respect to the vehicle M), the speed of the three-dimensional object, and the like), speed information of the vehicle (see at least, Fig 1, [0042] a vehicle speed sensor…connected to the input side of the BK_ECU 24), and traffic information (see at least, Fig 1, [0049] The receiver 36c receives…
various traffic information transmitted from Vehicle Information Communication System (VICS (registered trademark)) or the like by road-to-vehicle communication…includes, for example, traffic congestion information, road regulation information due to accidents, weather, etc.); calculate a reference inter-vehicle distance based on the distance between the position of the vehicle and the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance and the speed information (see at least, [0061] the driving ECU 14 sets a…target preceding vehicle distance Lpt…based on the vehicle speed Vp of the
preceding vehicle P…is set...by referring to a map (see the solid line in FIG. 3) set in advance in the driving ECU 14…is set so as to become a greater value as the preceding vehicle speed Vp increases);
and control the vehicle to decelerate in response to determining that the inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance (see at least, [0069] a region where the preceding vehicle distance Lp is less than the extended target preceding vehicle distance Lpt′ is set as a region where the vehicle M is permitted to decelerate).
Sugiyama does not explicitly teach determine, when the acquired traffic information indicates a traffic disturbance has occurred , whether an occurrence position of the traffic disturbance is on a travel route of the vehicle, based on the road map information, the position information. However, Mase teaches this limitation.
Mase teaches determine, when the acquired traffic information indicates a traffic disturbance has occurred (see at least, [0046] As a result of the determination of whether there is a traffic congestion, the congestion length is calculated based on an assumption that the section from the position that is determine to be congested to the construction section 1 is all congested), whether an occurrence position of the traffic disturbance is on a travel route of the vehicle, based on the road map information, the position information (see at least, [0045] determining that the present location in the vehicle data is congested or not is that…speed limit of the road that includes the present location is read from the
map data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama to include determine, when the acquired traffic information indicates a traffic disturbance has occurred , whether an occurrence position of the traffic disturbance is on a travel route of the vehicle, based on the road map information, the position information a as taught by Mase in order to calculate how far the congestion is extending for vehicle navigation (Mase, [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sugiyama and Mase teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Mase further teaches wherein the control unit executable instructions further cause the processor to acquire a road type of a road on which the vehicle is traveling (see at least, [0024] the navigation apparatus 12 is equipped with map data…The road data includes the ID of the link, the position information of the link, classification information of the link (e.g., whether a road is a priority road or not (i.e., a major road or the like), a school road or not)) and a road type of a road type at the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance (see at least, [0031] The position information to be transmitted may include the link ID of the link where the construction section 1 is included, and information regarding a road section that covers the construction section 1 in the link), and factors in a match or a mismatch between the road type and a road type of the determination of whether the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance is on the travel route of the vehicle is based at least on whether the road type of the road on which the vehicle is traveling matches the road type at the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance (see at least, [0034] The vehicle data generated in S120 includes…a current approach direction of the vehicle to the construction section 1…a current distance of the vehicle to the construction section 1 along the road (i.e., an example of position information), and the present location 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 have further modified the Sugiyama to include acquire a road type of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and a road type of a road type at the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance, and factors in a match or a mismatch between the road type and a road type of the determination of whether the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance is on the travel route of the vehicle is based at least on whether the road type of the road on which the vehicle is traveling matches the road type at the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance as taught by Mase in order to calculate how far the congestion is extending for vehicle navigation (Mase, [0065]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sugiyama and Mase teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Sugiyama further teaches wherein the traffic disturbance includes at least one of a traffic jam, road obstacle, a road construction, an accident, a road surface freezing, rainfall, snow accumulation, and heavy fog (see at least, [0080] the driving ECU 14 detects, based on the driving environment information, obstacles such as preceding vehicles and stopped vehicles that are present in the target route).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sugiyama and Mase teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to increase the reference inter-vehicle distance at a second distance between the position of the vehicle and the occurrence position of the traffic disturbance, the second distance being a distance before the traffic disturbance where the control to decelerate (see at least, [0063] the
distance ΔLpt may be a variable value, such as increasing the distance ΔLpt as the preceding vehicle
speed Vp increases…the extended target preceding vehicle distance ΔLpt′ be set to a distance that can prevent another vehicle from cutting in in front of the vehicle M) the vehicle due to the traffic disturbance does not occur (see at least, [0090] in the case where it is determined…that the vehicle driving path is not congested…the driving_ECU 14 calculates the target acceleration A of the vehicle M, [0108] the driving_ECU 14 applies driving control (that is, acceleration/deceleration control) to the vehicle M using the target acceleration A).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20230347892 A1; hereafter Sugiyama) in view of Mase et al. (US 20090256722 A1; hereafter Mase) in further view of Luo et al. (US 20080239076 A1; hereafter Luo).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Sugiyama and Mase teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1. Sugiyama further teaches wherein the processor acquires an inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and a vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle (see at least, [0061]] The target preceding vehicle distance Lpt is set…in advance in the driving_ECU…The target preceding
vehicle distance Lpt is set so as to become a greater value as the preceding vehicle speed Vp increases). The combination does not explicitly teach when the acquired inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance, provides warning information to a driver of the vehicle by a notification unit in the vehicle. However, Luo teaches this limitation.
Luo teaches when the acquired inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance, provides warning information to a driver of the vehicle by a notification unit in the vehicle (see at least, [0036] A headway detection system…utilizes data from the road region of the image to determine the distance of objects within the roadway, such as a preceding vehicle, from the vehicle and warns the driver of the vehicle if the distance falls below a desired value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Sugiyama and Mase to include when the acquired inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance, provides warning information to a driver of the vehicle by a notification unit in the vehicle as taught by Lou in order to avoid collision by alerting the driver of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20160129835 A1) discloses when the acquired inter-vehicle distance is shorter than the reference inter-vehicle distance, provides warning information to a driver of the vehicle by a notification unit in the vehicle ([0027] The control unit 500 may control the collision
warning unit 600 to raise the collision warning when the preceding vehicle is sensed on the same lane as the vehicle in the ROI and a distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than a predetermined distance).
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 TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Examiner, Art Unit 3662