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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, and 18-19 have been amended, claim 13 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 11-14, filed 11/12/2025; 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 drawing objections, the amendments to the specification have addressed the objections and rendered them moot. Therefore, the objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Further consideration of broadest reasonable interpretation and the prior art of record determined that Wei does appear to disclose the absolute value of the travel speed, as amended in claim 1. The mapping is maintained with a clarified interpretation. Newly added claim 21 is additionally rejected below by Wei in view of Inoue. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18-19, and 21 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.
Claim 21 is 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 recitation of error in the specification is in paragraph [0010] where the errors in the inter-vehicle distance, the relative speed, and travel speed decrease reducing the deceleration signal so a stopped state can’t be maintained. There is no portion of the specification that appears to disclose the second deceleration being directly controlled using a change of an error associated with the distance or travel speed.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 9, and 16 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei et al. (CN 111703423 A), hereinafter Wei.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, Wei discloses a device comprising:
a sensor;(see at least [0004] “sensor information”)
a memory configured to store instructions; and a controller operatively connected to the sensor and the memory, (see at least [0023] “A machine-readable storage medium stores instructions for enabling a machine to execute the aforementioned method for monitoring longitudinal control safety of an autonomous vehicle.”)
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 [0004] “the autonomous driving system processes all the collected sensor information… that can truly reflect the information of the vehicle's surrounding environment”)
determine whether a distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle satisfies a distance condition, and whether an absolute value of a travel speed of the first vehicle satisfies a speed condition; (see at least [0015] “operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is less than the speed of the host vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the host vehicle is less than the expected distance” Note: It is understood that the “following” of a vehicle would be driving in the same direction and would therefore only consider the speed in the same direction of travel. So it will be assumed that all travel speed considerations will be the magnitude of the speed.)
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 [0015] “A third operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is greater than the speed of the own vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the own vehicle is greater than the expected distance, and a third algorithm for controlling the own vehicle to accelerate with a third acceleration under the third operating condition;”)
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 [0015] “a second operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is less than the speed of the host vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the host vehicle is greater than the expected distance, and a second algorithm for controlling the host vehicle to decelerate at a second acceleration under the second operating condition;”)
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, Wei 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 [0015] “a first operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is less than the speed of the host vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the host vehicle is less than the expected distance, and a first algorithm for controlling the host vehicle to decelerate at a first acceleration under the first operating condition;”)
With respect to claims 4, 12 and 18, Wei discloses the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the device to: determine, based on the absolute value of 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 [0015] “a first operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is less than the speed of the host vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the host vehicle is less than the expected distance, and a first algorithm for controlling the host vehicle to decelerate at a first acceleration under the first operating condition;”)
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 3, 5-6, 11, 14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claims 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, Wei discloses selecting a deceleration based on the conditions of the first and second vehicles, but does not explicitly disclose the manor 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 Wei 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, Wei 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 absolute value of 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 Wei 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].
With respect to claim 21, Wei 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 [0015] “A third operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is greater than the speed of the own vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the own vehicle is greater than the expected distance, and a third algorithm for controlling the own vehicle to accelerate with a third acceleration under the third operating condition;”)
and based on the distance condition and the speed condition being satisfied, by causing the second deceleration, (see at least [0015] “a second operating condition in which the speed of the leading vehicle is less than the speed of the host vehicle and the actual distance between the leading vehicle and the host vehicle is greater than the expected distance, and a second algorithm for controlling the host vehicle to decelerate at a second acceleration under the second operating condition;”)
Wei discloses decelerating at different acceleration values, but does not explicitly disclose the values being based on the change of the change in deviation between the distance or travel speed.
However, Inoue teaches the controlling of the first vehicle by causing the second deceleration is associated with at least one of: a change of an error associated with the distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, or a change of an error associated with the travel speed after the absolute value of the travel speed is reduced below a threshold speed. (see at least [0030] “Also, in a case where the position of the vehicle CR relative to the position of the preceding vehicle FR moves from the reference position P0 to a position farther from the preceding vehicle FR, the inter-vehicle distance deviation De becomes positive.” [0049-0050] “Mv =
2
×
R
v
+
T
d
+
D
e
T
m
2
… Mv is a target 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 Wei to include the sloped change in deceleration disclosed in Inoue, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to appropriately control the acceleration/deceleration on a vehicle even when the preceding vehicle decelerates rapidly, see Inoue [0007-0008].
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei as applied to claims 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, Wei 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 Wei 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, Wei 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 Wei 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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