DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the reply received on 30 December 2025. Claims 1-4 and 6 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The title having been amended, the objection to the title is withdrawn.
Claim 1 having been amended, none of the claims are presently subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The arguments regarding the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered.
As to the argument that US 11,254,311 (Chow) does not provide a motivation to combine with US 12,434,701 (Watanabe et al.) because Chow is concerned with responding to the presence of a second vehicle in a blind spot of a first vehicle, the argument is not persuasive. Chow teaches additional traffic scenarios related to lane changing and merging in addition to the blind spot scenario.
As to the argument that Chow does not teach determining the second vehicle having a relative speed and a relative distance to the first vehicle where the relative speed and relative distance are each within preset ranges, the argument is not persuasive because Chow teaches the first vehicle determining relative locations of nearby objects and further determining whether a nearby object is approaching the travel lane of the first 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12,434,701 B2 (Watanabe et al.) in view of US 11,254,311 B2 (Chow).
As to claim 1, Watanabe discloses a vehicle travel control device comprising:
a camera sensor and a radar sensor that acquires information on targets around an own vehicle (Fig 1, col 5 ln 30-32 - "The main camera 11a and the sub-camera 11b may each be, for example, an autonomous sensor that senses a real space in front of an own vehicle M", col 6 ln 15-16 - "To the first traveling environment recognition section 11d, a plurality of radar devices may be coupled"); and
an electronic control unit (Fig 1, col 23 ln 16-18 - "each of the ECUs 22 to 25, for example, may include a processor including a central processing unit") configured to
execute interruption acceptance control by acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle so that an adjacent vehicle can interrupt in when it is determined that the adjacent vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane is attempting to interrupt in front of the own vehicle by flashing blinkers based on the information on targets acquired by the camera sensor and a radar sensor (col 13 ln 1-3 - "The first traveling environment recognition section 11d may determine whether the light detected in step S1 is blinking", col 17 ln 13-21 - "If the first traveling environment recognition section 11d detects the blinking of the right turn signal lamp 44 [...] the travel_ECU 22 may cause the own vehicle M to decelerate to a predetermined speed (S32). The travel_ECU 22 may control the BK_ECU 25 to drive the brake actuator 29 [...] until a distance between the own vehicle M and the left parallel-traveling vehicle P2, for example, becomes a predetermined inter-vehicular distance")
wherein the electronic control unit is further configured to
terminate the interruption acceptance control when it is determined that the adjacent vehicle is not executing interruption and the adjacent vehicle has stopped blinking the blinkers in a situation where the interruption acceptance control is being executed (Fig 9, col 14 ln 8-13 - "The first traveling environment recognition section 11d may cause the process to exit the routine and return to step S1 after the predetermined time period has elapsed from the detection of the previous turning off of the turn signal lamp 43 or 44 in the corresponding one of the vehicles V1, V2, and V3").
Chow teaches the limitations not expressly disclosed by Watanabe, namely:
it is determined that a relative speed and a relative distance of the adjacent vehicle to the own vehicle are within a preset interruption allowable range (col 3 ln 24-31 - "The systems and methods provide several benefits and advantages such as providing an adaptive cruise control system that takes into account data detected on all sides of the vehicle. This provides the benefit of allowing the vehicle to safely avoid accidents or collisions in situations in which [...] another vehicle is merging into a lane occupied by the vehicle", col 7 ln 28-38 - "one or more object sensors of the vehicle may receive lateral object data. The lateral object data may correspond to a velocity of a lateral object (e.g., another vehicle), a distance from a main body to a lateral object, a relative location of a lateral object, or the like. Additionally, one or more object sensors may detect object data that corresponds to an object in front of the vehicle or behind the vehicle and may include similar information as the lateral object data. In that regard, the one or more object sensors may detect velocities of nearby objects, distances to nearby objects, relative locations of nearby objects", col 7 ln 51-57 - "the ECU may determine a lane entrance event or a lane change event based on the determined data and other information received by the ECU. A lane entrance event may correspond to a determination by the ECU that a lateral object is traveling towards a current lane occupied by the main body. The lane entrance event may be determined based on the lateral object data").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Watanabe and Chow because both relate to systems for automatically controlling a vehicle speed in a lane change or merge scenario. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Chow by allowing the control system to more accurately predict whether another vehicle will perform a lane change.
As to claim 2, the combination of Watanabe and Chow teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Watanabe further discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to
terminate the interruption acceptance control when it is determined that the adjacent vehicle is not executing the interruption, the adjacent vehicle has turned off the blinkers, and a time for which the interruption acceptance control is being executed is equal to or greater than a reference value, in the situation where the interruption acceptance control is executed (Fig 9, col 14 ln 8-13).
As to claim 3, the combination of Watanabe and Chow teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Watanabe further discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to
execute follow-up inter-vehicle distance control after terminating the interruption acceptance control (col 9 ln 43-46 - "the first travel control mode may be a semi-automated driving mode that causes the own vehicle M to travel along the target traveling course by appropriately combining mainly adaptive cruise control", col 17 ln 45-48 - "If the adaptive cruise control is temporarily halted (S36: YES), the travel_ECU 22 may reboot the adaptive cruise control that has been halted (S37)").
As to claim 4, the combination of Watanabe and Chow teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Chow further teaches wherein the electronic control unit is configured to
acquire map information (col 8 ln 62-64 - "the ECU may compare the current location to a memory that includes map data, and may determine a lane end event based on this comparison"), and is configured to
continue the interruption acceptance control when it is determined, based on the map information, that a lane in which the adjacent vehicle is traveling merges into a lane in which the own vehicle is traveling within a predetermined range in front of the own vehicle, even if it is determined that the adjacent vehicle is not executing the interruption and the adjacent vehicle has stopped blinking the blinkers in a situation where the interruption acceptance control is being executed (col 6 ln 38-42 - "if the object data indicates that a collision may occur if the main body 103 remains at the predetermined speed then the ECU 102 may control the power source 106 or the brake 114 to accelerate or decelerate the vehicle", col 7 ln 39-47 - "the ECU of the vehicle may determine data corresponding to the nearby objects, including any lateral objects, based on the object data. The determined data may include [...] information such as whether the object has a blinker that is turned on", col 7 ln 53-56 - "A lane entrance event may correspond to a determination by the ECU that a lateral object is traveling towards a current lane occupied by the main body", col 8 ln 44-45 - "the ECU may determine a current or adjacent lane end event based on the detected data").
As to claim 6, the combination of Watanabe and Chow teaches the vehicle travel control device according to claim 1.
Chow further teaches wherein the electronic control unit is configured to
determine that the relative speed and the relative distance are within the preset interruption allowable range when the relative distance is equal to or greater than a reference relative distance, and the reference relative distance is set to be a positive value when the relative speed is less than a negative reference value, and to be a negative value when the relative speed is equal to or greater than the reference value, and so that the smaller the relative speed is, the larger the reference relative distance is (col 3 ln 53-62 - "The ECU may determine data corresponding to the lateral object such as a velocity or orientation of the lateral object, a distance to the lateral object, or the like. The ECU may further determine whether [...] the lateral object is traveling into a lane occupied by the main body. Based on these determinations, the ECU may control the power source or the brake to increase or decrease the velocity of the main body to reduce the likelihood of an accident or a collision with the lateral object", col 6 ln 38-42).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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 at 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669