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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper terminology for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification fails to provide accurate terminology for the claimed “acceleration weight” as presented in claims 1, 5, 11, and 15. The specification instead refers to this term as an “acceleration multiplier”. It is recognized that an “acceleration weight” is broader than an “acceleration multiplier”, and that the originally filed claims 5-6 and 15-16 use this “acceleration multiplier” term. Applicant is required to either amend their disclosure to include this “acceleration weight” term, or to change the term referred to in the claims back to “acceleration multiplier” as previously presented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh (US 20220176831 A1) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20200290612 A1) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20170066443 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Huh teaches a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a controller ([0031]);
and memory storing instructions ([0035]) that, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
obtain, based on a determination that a driving route of a vehicle comprises a tollgate, road information about a road on the driving route ([0031]);
determine, based on the road information, a target speed for driving control of the vehicle ([0041]);
and control the vehicle to travel at a target ([0041], deaccelerated to a target speed) rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate.
Huh teaches controlling the vehicle to travel at a target speed, but does not teach controlling the vehicle to travel at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches controlling a vehicle’s travel by issuing a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate ([0033], “issues a target acceleration/deceleration value” to cause the vehicle speed to coincide with the “target speed”).
As Yamaguchi is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle through tollgates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huh by having the operations control the target rate of acceleration based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the rate of acceleration of the vehicle so as to not create an unharmonious operation for a driver by sharply increasing/decreasing a vehicle’s speed with no regards to its acceleration.
Although the prior combination teaches that an acceleration is used to reach the target speed, it does not teach that the target speed is additionally based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches controlling a vehicle speed based on acceleration weights ([0048]). It also teaches that the maximum amount and change rate of acceleration are inversely proportional to the number of lanes ([0063] and [0066]), and that these values are assessed and changed when the number of lanes on a road changes ([0049]).
It is recognized that a decreasing lane change ratio is indicative of the road changing from a larger number of lanes to a smaller number of lanes. Although this scenario has a decreasing lane change ratio, the values of the maximum and change rate of acceleration are instead increased in Kobayashi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these acceleration weights are inversely proportional to the lane change ratio, meaning that when the lane change ratio indicates a decreasing number of lanes, these acceleration weights instead increase, and vice versa for an increasing number of lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the controlled target speed of the vehicle is additionally determined based off the acceleration weights of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kobayashi, of adapting the acceleration values to enhance the feelings of drivers according to regional differences ([0064]), and to enable the vehicle to accelerate and/or deaccelerate at a pace corresponding to the road it is currently traveling on ([0066]).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Huh teaches the apparatus further comprising:
a communication device ([0031] and [0033]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to:
receive, from a navigation device via the communication device, an indication of a location of the tollgate ([0031, receives tollgate information);
and determine, based on the location of the tollgate, that the driving route comprises the tollgate ([0038]).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Huh teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to obtain the road information by receiving the road information from the navigation device via the communication device ([0031] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Huh teaches wherein the road information comprises information about at least one of: a curved section in the driving route, or a number of lanes in the driving route ([0017] and [0052], information is used to determine if a tollgate is on the highway by analyzing if it has two or more roads).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Huh teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: determining the target speed further based on a posted speed limit ([0031] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 11, Huh teaches a vehicle control method comprising:
obtaining, by a controller and based on a determination that a driving route of a vehicle comprises a tollgate, road information about a road on the driving route ([0031]);
determining, by the controller and based on the road information, a target speed for driving control of the vehicle ([0041]);
and controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to travel at a target ([0041], deaccelerated to a target speed) rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate.
Huh teaches controlling the vehicle to travel at a target speed, but does not teach controlling the vehicle to travel at a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches controlling a vehicle’s travel by issuing a target rate of acceleration, wherein the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, a current driving speed of the vehicle, or a distance from the vehicle to the tollgate ([0033], “issues a target acceleration/deceleration value” to cause the vehicle speed to coincide with the “target speed”).
As Yamaguchi is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle through tollgates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Huh by having the operations control the target rate of acceleration based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to control the rate of acceleration of the vehicle so as to not create an unharmonious operation for a driver by sharply increasing/decreasing a vehicle’s speed with no regards to its acceleration.
Although the prior combination teaches that an acceleration is used to reach the target speed, it does not teach that the target speed is additionally based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route.
In the same field of endeavor, Kobayashi teaches controlling a vehicle speed based on acceleration weights ([0048]). It also teaches that the maximum amount and change rate of acceleration are inversely proportional to the number of lanes ([0063] and [0066]), and that these values are assessed and changed when the number of lanes on a road changes ([0049]).
It is recognized that a decreasing lane change ratio is indicative of the road changing from a larger number of lanes to a smaller number of lanes. Although this scenario has a decreasing lane change ratio, the values of the maximum and change rate of acceleration are instead increased in Kobayashi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these acceleration weights are inversely proportional to the lane change ratio, meaning that when the lane change ratio indicates a decreasing number of lanes, these acceleration weights instead increase, and vice versa for an increasing number of lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the controlled target speed of the vehicle is additionally determined based off the acceleration weights of Kobayashi based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Kobayashi, of adapting the acceleration values to enhance the feelings of drivers according to regional differences ([0064]), and to enable the vehicle to accelerate and/or deaccelerate at a pace corresponding to the road it is currently traveling on ([0066]).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. Huh teaches the method further comprising:
receiving, by the controller and from a navigation device via a communication device, an indication of a location of the tollgate ([0031, receives tollgate information);
and determining, by the controller and based on the location of the tollgate, that the driving route comprises the tollgate ([0038]).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 12. Huh teaches wherein obtaining the road information comprises: receiving, by the controller, the road information from the navigation device via the communication device ([0031] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. Huh teaches wherein the road information comprises information about at least one of: a curved section in the driving route, or a number of lanes in the driving route ([0017] and [0052], information is used to determine if a tollgate is on the highway by analyzing if it has two or more roads).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. Huh teaches wherein determining the target speed comprises: determining, by the controller, the target speed further based on a posted speed limit ([0031] and [0045]).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Yamaguchi and Kobayashi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Foster et al. (US 20230020966 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 7.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section after the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0111] and [0115], endpoint determined based on lanes merging after the tollgate and angles within a predetermined departure zone along a length of the roadway after the toll both facility), setting the target speed to a posted speed limit ([0137]).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle to safely return to a maximum speed once it has exited the toll booth to subsequently enable safe operation as the vehicle returns to the highway.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 8.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to determine the target speed by: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section before the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0062, [0115], [0119]), setting the target speed to be a smaller value of: an exit speed of the curved section, and a posted speed limit ([0123], “the autonomous vehicle may select the smaller of these two values as the final actual speed”).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the vehicle to safely slow its speed in order to safely proceed through the tollgate.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 17.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the determining of the target speed comprises: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section after the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0111] and [0115], endpoint determined based on lanes merging after the tollgate and angles within a predetermined departure zone along a length of the roadway after the toll both facility), setting, by the controller, the target speed to a posted speed limit ([0137]).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle to safely return to a maximum speed once it has exited the toll booth to subsequently enable safe operation as the vehicle returns to the highway.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of claim 18.
In the same field of endeavor, Foster teaches wherein the determining of the target speed comprises: based on the road information indicating that there is a curved section before the tollgate and within a threshold distance away from the tollgate ([0062, [0115], [0119]), setting the target speed to be a smaller value of: an exit speed of the curved section, and a posted speed limit ([0123], “the autonomous vehicle may select the smaller of these two values as the final actual speed”).
As Foster is analogous to the art of controlling the travel of a vehicle along different road sections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the process of Foster based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to enable the vehicle to safely slow its speed in order to safely proceed through the tollgate.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huh in view of Yamaguchi and Kobayashi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sugawara (JP 2000168393 A).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Yamaguchi teaches wherein the target rate of acceleration is a first target rate of acceleration, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the vehicle control apparatus to control the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration ([0033], target rate of acceleration set correspondingly with the target speed) further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that this first target rate of acceleration is further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugawara teaches that a first target speed is applied to a vehicle based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance ([0018] and [0020]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to apply this teaching to the prior combination by setting a vehicle’s target speed to a first target speed when it is within a first threshold distance. As the target acceleration value of Yamaguchi is coincided with the target speed, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that setting the target speed of the prior combination to a first target speed would correspondingly set the target acceleration of the prior combination to a first target acceleration.
Sugawara is analogous to the art of speed control systems for vehicle operation through tolling stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the setting of a vehicle target speed to a first target speed when within a first distance threshold based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Sugawara, of ensuring that the vehicle is traveling, at most, at a passing speed so that its signal is effectively processed and any required tolls are paid before the vehicle exits the tollgate ([0004]).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9. Yamaguchi teaches that a target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, the current driving speed of the vehicle, or a control gain ([0033], based on target vehicle speed).
Sugawara teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, further cause the vehicle control apparatus to: based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a second threshold distance that is less than the first threshold distance, control the vehicle to travel at a second target rate of acceleration ([0022], sets the vehicle to travel at a second target speed, in which the target rate of acceleration is set correspondingly; see Figure 5 of Sugawara included below, where it is illustrated that the second distance threshold, which is applied at gate 19, is closer to the main toll gate 12 than the first distance is, which is applied at gate 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sugawara
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11. Yamaguchi teaches wherein the target rate of acceleration is a first target rate of acceleration, ([0033], target rate of acceleration set correspondingly with the target speed) and wherein the controlling of the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration is further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
The prior combination does not explicitly teach wherein the controlling of the vehicle to travel at the first target rate of acceleration is further based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugawara teaches that a first target speed is applied to a vehicle based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a first threshold distance ([0018] and [0020]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to apply this teaching to the prior combination by setting a vehicle’s target speed to a first target speed when it is within a first threshold distance. As the target acceleration value of Yamaguchi is coincided with the target speed, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that setting the target speed of the prior combination to a first target speed would correspondingly set the target acceleration of the prior combination to a first target acceleration.
Sugawara is analogous to the art of speed control systems for vehicle operation through tolling stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to implement the setting of a vehicle target speed to a first target speed when within a first distance threshold based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Sugawara, of ensuring that the vehicle is traveling, at most, at a passing speed so that its signal is effectively processed and any required tolls are paid before the vehicle exits the tollgate ([0004]).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 19. Yamaguchi teaches that the target rate of acceleration is determined based on at least one of: the target speed, the current driving speed of the vehicle, or a control gain ([0033], based on target vehicle speed).
Sugawara teaches the method further comprising: based on the distance from the vehicle to the tollgate being within a second threshold distance that is less than the first threshold distance, controlling, by the controller, the vehicle to travel at a second target rate of acceleration ([0022], sets the vehicle to travel at a second target speed, in which the target rate of acceleration is subsequently based on; see Figure 5 of Sugawara included below, where it is illustrated that the second distance threshold, which is applied at gate 19, is closer to the main toll gate 12 than the first distance is, which is applied at gate 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
251
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sugawara
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, applicant argues that the amended limitation “determine… based on an acceleration weight that is inversely proportional to a lane change ratio of the driving route, a target speed" is not taught by the combination of Huh and Yamaguchi. This argument is persuasive. However, a new rejection is given in view of additional reference Kobayashi, which teaches this amended limitation when combined with the teachings of Huh and Yamaguchi.
Applicant contested that claims 1 and 11 are in condition for allowance as “some features of some features of claim 6 have been incorporated into each of independent claims 1 and 11”, with the previously filed claim 6 being indicated as allowable subject matter. This argument is unpersuasive. The previously filed claim 6 depended on the limitations of the previously filed claim 5, which included – but was otherwise not limited to “determin[ing], based on the road information indicating a lack of curved section in the driving route within a threshold distance away from the tollgate, a lane change ratio between a first quantity of lanes, before a lane change location, and a second quantity of lanes after the lane change location”. This determining of and definition of the lane change ratio are not part of the limitations of the amended claims 1 and 11. Additionally, the amended claims refer to an “acceleration weight”, which is recognized as a broader term than the previously claimed “acceleration multiplier”. Therefore, a new rejection is given over claims 1 and 11.
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 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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663