CTNF 18/514,052 CTNF 98715 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Claims This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/13/2026. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 16, and 21 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Claim 12 has been marked as amended but does not appear to contain any amended language. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending and are being examined below. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 11-14, filed 05/13/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented. With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the amendment addresses the rejections in claims 1-8 pertaining to the absolute value of the travel speed, but does not in claims 9-12 and 14-21. The rejection of claim 21 for introducing a change in an error, has been rendered moot by the amendment. Therefore, claims 9-12 and 14-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied prior art does not appear to disclose the repeatedly controlling the vehicle with a first deceleration until a condition is satisfied as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Zhang did disclose this limitation, as mapped in the final office action below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The only recitations of an absolute value in the instant specification includes paragraph [0095] and [0098] which refer to descriptions illustrating absolute values of the first/second required deceleration. There is no indication of the absolute value of the travel speed being used to satisfy the speed condition. Note: For the purposes of examination it will be understood that the “following” of a vehicle would be driving in the same direction and would therefore only consider the magnitude of the speed in the same direction of travel. If there was such a thing as following in reverse, it is assumed that the travel speed would still be considered with reference to the magnitude of the speed in the reverse direction. Claims 10-11, 15, 17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claims 9 and 16 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (EP 3 939 844 A1), hereinafter Zhang . With respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, Zhang discloses a device comprising: a sensor; (see at least [0076] “a vehicle sensor ”) a memory configured to store instructions; and a controller operatively connected to the sensor and the memory, (see at least [0018] “The machine-readable storage medium stores instructions used for controlling a machine to perform the longitudinal control method for the automatic driving vehicle described above.”) wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: detect, based on the sensor, information associated with at least one of a first vehicle or a second vehicle; (see at least [0021] “The processor is connected to the map unit and the detection unit through signals and is configured to acquire information of an object in front of the automatic driving vehicle based on the map information and the information of the obstacle”) determine whether a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a distance condition, and whether a travel speed of the first vehicle satisfies a speed condition; (see at least [0008] “working condition in which the speed of the front vehicle is less than the speed of the ego vehicle and the real distance between the front vehicle and the ego vehicle is less than the desired distance ”) and control the first vehicle: based on at least some of the information and neither the distance condition nor the speed condition being satisfied, by causing a first deceleration; (see at least [0073] “In step S130, when the automatic driving vehicle is in the cruise mode, a cruise control is performed.” [0003] “ when no front vehicle is within… a minimum distance threshold for the automatic driving vehicle switching from the cruise mode to the following mode” [0083-0084] “In step S133, an acceleration of the ego vehicle is calculated based on the corrected relative speed difference.”) or based on at least one of the distance condition or the speed condition being satisfied, by causing a second deceleration greater than the first deceleration , (see at least [0029-0030] “The following mode refers to that a speed of the ego vehicle is adjusted, when a front vehicle is located within the action distance of the automatic driving vehicle” [0035] “In step S120, when the automatic driving vehicle is in the following mode, a following control is performed.” [0008] “in the following mode…a second working condition in which the speed of the front vehicle is less than the speed of the ego vehicle… decelerate at a second acceleration;”) wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the device to repeatedly control the first vehicle by causing the first deceleration while neither the distance condition nor the speed condition is satisfied until at least one of the distance condition or the speed condition is satisfied. (see at least [0073] “In step S130, when the automatic driving vehicle is in the cruise mode, a cruise control is performed.” [0095] “the program generally switches from the cruise mode to the AEB mode or the following mode .” [0003] “The cruise mode… when no front vehicle is within an action distance… for the automatic driving vehicle switching from the cruise mode to the following mode … The following mode… in the case that a front vehicle is within the action distance ” [0083-0084] “In step S133, an acceleration of the ego vehicle is calculated based on the corrected relative speed difference.” Note: The vehicle is controlled in a real time manner, so it would be controlled by acceleration “a”, until a front vehicle was within the action distance, at which point it would be controlled by one of accelerations “a1”-“a5”. ) With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, Zhang discloses the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: determine, based on the distance being smaller than a threshold distance, a third deceleration greater than the first deceleration; and control the first vehicle by causing the third deceleration. (see at least [0008] “a first working condition in which… the real distance between the front vehicle and the ego vehicle is less than the desired distance , and a first algorithm for controlling the ego vehicle to decelerate at a first acceleration under the first working condition;”) With respect to claims 4, 12 and 18, Zhang discloses the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: determine, based on the travel speed being lower than a threshold speed, a third deceleration greater than the first deceleration; and control the first vehicle by causing the third deceleration. (see at least [0008] “a first working condition in which the speed of the front vehicle is less than the speed of the ego vehicle …controlling the ego vehicle to decelerate at a first acceleration under the first working condition;”) With respect to claim 21, Zhang discloses wherein the program, when executed, causes the controller to perform controlling of the first vehicle: based on the at least some of the information and neither the distance condition nor the speed condition being satisfied, by causing the first deceleration; (see at least [0073] “In step S130, when the automatic driving vehicle is in the cruise mode, a cruise control is performed.” [0003] “ when no front vehicle is within… a minimum distance threshold for the automatic driving vehicle switching from the cruise mode to the following mode”) and based on the distance condition and the speed condition being satisfied, by causing the second deceleration, (see at least [0029-0030] “The following mode refers to that a speed of the ego vehicle is adjusted, when a front vehicle is located within the action distance of the automatic driving vehicle” [0035] “In step S120, when the automatic driving vehicle is in the following mode, a following control is performed.” [0008] “a second working condition in which the speed of the front vehicle is less than the speed of the ego vehicle and the real distance between the front vehicle and the ego vehicle is greater than the desired distance, and a second algorithm for controlling the ego vehicle to decelerate at a second acceleration under the second working condition;”) the controlling of the first vehicle by causing the second deceleration is associated with at least one of: the distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfying the distance condition while performing stopping control of the first vehicle , (see at least [0003] “the automatic driving vehicle switching from the cruise mode to the following mode … The following mode… in the case that a front vehicle is within the action distance ” [0029] “the start-stop mode is subordinate to the following mode”) or the travel speed of the first vehicle satisfying the speed condition while performing stopping control of the first vehicle after the travel speed is reduced below a threshold speed. (see at least [0003] “The cruise mode… when no front vehicle is within … a minimum distance threshold for the automatic driving vehicle switching from the cruise mode to the following mode, and is related to speeds of the ego vehicle and the front vehicle … The following mode… in the case that a front vehicle is within the action distance ”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 5-6, 11, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim s 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0236685 A1), hereinafter Inoue . With respect to claims 3, 5, and 11, Zhang discloses selecting a deceleration based on the conditions of the first and second vehicles, but does not explicitly disclose the manner by which the deceleration changes from one to the other. However, Inoue teaches the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: control the first vehicle to change, over a time period, from the first deceleration to the third deceleration based on a slope. (see at least Fig. 5, [0062] “the correction determining unit 105 changes the deceleration. In other words, between the time t1 and a time t2 a, the correction determining unit 105 decreases the deceleration from a1 to a2 (a1>a2).” Note: The lower graph of fig. 5 shows a sloping decrease in deceleration. ) As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 deceleration selection of Zhang to include the sloped change in deceleration disclosed in Inoue , with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent occurrence of factors such as swing back which inhibit the comfort of the user of the vehicle, see Inoue [0063]. With respect to claims 6, 14, and 19, Zhang discloses selecting a deceleration based on the conditions of the first and second vehicles, but does not explicitly disclose the slope of the deceleration being considered in the change between various decelerations. However, Inoue teaches the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: control the first vehicle to change, over a time period, from the first deceleration to a third deceleration based on a first slope and the distance being smaller than a threshold distance; (see at least [0062] “if the vehicle speed provides a value equal to or lower than 60 km/h at the time t1, the correction determining unit 105 changes the deceleration. In other words, between the time t1 and a time t2 a, the correction determining unit 105 decreases the deceleration from a1 to a2 (a1>a2).” [0061] “a time t2 is a target time Tm1 which is required at the time t1, and when the time t2 comes, the inter-vehicle distance deviation De of the vehicle CR and the preceding vehicle FR is substantially 0 and the relative speed is substantially 0 m/s.”) and control the first vehicle to change, over another time period, from a fourth deceleration to a fifth deceleration greater than the third deceleration based on a second slope greater than the first slope and the travel speed being lower than a threshold speed at a time point at which the first vehicle is controlled based on the fourth deceleration. (see at least [0067-0068] “Also, if the vehicle speed provides a value equal to or lower than 60 km/h at the time t1, the correction determining unit 105 changes the deceleration . In other words, between the time t1 and a time t3 a, the correction determining unit 105 decreases the deceleration from a1 to a3 (a1>a3) … According to this condition (b3), in a case where the correction deceleration MAv is larger than the deceleration under the condition (b2), the minimum value of the deceleration jerk Jv is not limited to a specific value. In other words, the slope of the deceleration line in the case where the condition (b3) is satisfied becomes a third slope steeper than the second slope .”) As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 deceleration selection of Zhang to include the sloped change in deceleration disclosed in Inoue , with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent occurrence of factors such as swing back which inhibit the comfort of the user of the vehicle and prioritize the safety of the user even in case of the swing back, see Inoue [0063, 0069] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim s 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Kume et al. (US 2024/0132117 A1), hereinafter Kume . With respect to claims 7, 15, and 20, Zhang discloses selecting a deceleration based on the conditions of the first and second vehicles, but does not explicitly disclose maintaining a stopped state of the vehicle. However, Kume teaches the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: maintain a stopped state of the first vehicle based on a stopping deceleration greater than the first deceleration and the first vehicle being stopped based on the absolute value of the travel speed. (see at least [0166] “when the autonomous traveling control makes a transition to the standby state, the subject vehicle Am is caused to remain stopped by the driving assistance control (ACC function)”) As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 deceleration control of Zhang to include the stop keeping disclosed in Kume , with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the consideration of handling a high deceleration situation in case of an emergent situation, see Kume [0200]. With respect to claim 8, Zhang discloses selecting a deceleration based on the conditions of the first and second vehicles, but does not explicitly disclose terminating autonomous control based on a duration of a stopped state of the vehicle. However, Kume teaches the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: maintain the stopped state of the first vehicle for a time period starting from a time point at which a situation requiring termination of an autonomous driving control of the first vehicle is determined based on the information; and terminate the autonomous driving control of the first vehicle after the time period elapses. (see at least [0205] “In S63, the environment recognition section 62 determines whether the elapsed time after the stop has exceeded the continuation time limit … When the elapsed time after the stop has exceeded the continuation time limit, the process proceeds to S68, where the autonomous traveling control (automated driving) that is being executed is terminated .”) As both are in the same field of endeavor, 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 deceleration control of Zhang to include the autonomous control cancellation disclosed in Kume , with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the consideration of handling a high deceleration situation in case of an emergent situation, see Kume [0200]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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. /S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 18/514,052 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights