DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 12/08/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 non-obviousness.
7. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haug (US 20090321165) in view of Ito (US 20200139966).
Regarding Claim 1, Haug discloses A driving assistance apparatus comprising: a front sensor included in a host vehicle and having a field of sensing in front of the host vehicle; (Haug, see at least [0002] wherein to find the position of a vehicle traveling ahead in one's own lane with the aid of a radar sensor or a comparable position-finding system; see also paragraph [0031], “At time t3, radar sensor 22, whose position-finding depth is, for example, 150 m, finds the position of a slower preceding vehicle.”)
and a controller (e.g., control unit 10) configured to perform Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) (Haug, see at least paragraph [0023], “FIG. 1 shows as an example of a speed control device, according to the present invention, an ACC system for a vehicle having hybrid drive”; see also paragraph [0002]) based on a set distance from the host vehicle to a front vehicle [Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle”; see also paragraphs [0002] and [0003]) and a set maximum limit for an acceleration of the host vehicle using the front sensor, (Haug, see at least paragraph [0026], “In particular, the parameter sets, stored in program and parameter memory 20, specify for each operating mode an upper limit a_max_N and a_max_E, as well as a lower limit a_min_N and a_min_E for setpoint acceleration a, which is able to be output to drive management 14. The lower limits are negative and consequently state the maximum deceleration of the vehicle that is admissible in each case.” ** Haug does not explicitly disclose using the front sensor) and, in response to a control signal for controlling fuel efficiency while the ACC is being performed, [Haug, see at least selection of the “eco mode E” at abstract, paragraph [0026], claim 8, etc. for fuel-saving], increase the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle. In the eco mode it may be expedient to enlarge this time gap, so that more play is available for the dip-in strategy.”) and decrease the set maximum limit for the acceleration of the host vehicle. (Haug, see at least FIGS. 2 and 3, and paragraph [0027], “As shown in FIG. 2, upper limit a_max_E for the acceleration in eco mode E is smaller than the corresponding upper limit in normal mode N, and lower limit a_min_E in eco mode E is greater than the corresponding lower limit in normal mode N.”).
While Haug does not explicitly disclose using the front sensor
However, ITO discloses using the front sensor (ITO, see at least [0048] wherein the surrounding environment monitoring sensor 35 sensing information about the preceding vehicle)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Haug with the teachings of Ito to include the capability of using a front sensor in which can be utilized by the system of Haug to set a maximum limit for an acceleration of a vehicle. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle.
As per claim 11, the claim is directed towards a method for assisting driving that recites similar limitations performed by the driving assistance apparatus of claim 1. The cited portions of Haug and Ito discloses used in the rejection of claims 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claims 11 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
7. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haug (US 20090321165) in view of Ito (US 20200139966) in further view of Lee (KR 20220106489).
Regarding Claim 2, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 1, (see rejection above)
Modified Haug does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine a control factor for adjusting the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle and the set maximum limit for the acceleration of the host vehicle based on a distance to empty in response to a control signal for turning on a fuel warning light or the control signal for controlling the fuel efficiency.
However, Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a control factor for adjusting the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle and the set maximum limit for the acceleration of the host vehicle based on a distance to empty in response to a control signal for turning on a fuel warning light or the control signal for controlling the fuel efficiency. (Lee, see at least [0043] wherein when the initial response is input according to the driving mode (dynamic, normal, comfort, etc.) requested by the driver and the distance is also used, the collection unit 100 determines the distance from the current vehicle location to the destination. The driving information such as the environment of the route and the number of passengers, is collected, and the collection unit 100 collects the collected driving information on the route to the input destination and the remaining oil amount or battery of the current vehicle. The distance the vehicle can travel is calculated based on available energy information such as the remaining capacity. Also see [0038]-[0041] wherein the distance determines how the cruise control function performs and the speed ranges given as based off the factors such as sensors, distance, battery capacity, etc.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Haug with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting a set distance and the maximum acceleration limit based on a vehicle’s battery charge in which this can be used to control functions of the vehicle to try and further limit changes in which would deplete the battery’s energy. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 3, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
Lee further discloses wherein the control factor is inversely proportional to the distance to empty. (Lee, see at least [0043] wherein when the initial response is input according to the driving mode (dynamic, normal, comfort, etc.) requested by the driver and the distance is also used, the collection unit 100 determines the distance from the current vehicle location to the destination. The driving information such as the environment of the route and the number of passengers, is collected, and the collection unit 100 collects the collected driving information on the route to the input destination and the remaining oil amount or battery of the current vehicle. The distance the vehicle can travel is calculated based on available energy information such as the remaining capacity. ** remaining capacity for vehicle’s energy controls increase/decrease to a front vehicle, alters maximum allowable acceleration and reduces allowable speed of the vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Haug with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of adjusting a set distance and the maximum acceleration limit based on a vehicle’s battery charge in which this can be used to control functions of the vehicle to try and further limit changes in which would deplete the battery’s energy. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 4, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
However, Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the control factor to be a larger value as a distance from a current location of the host vehicle to a destination is longer. (Lee, see at least [0043] wherein when the initial response is input according to the driving mode (dynamic, normal, comfort, etc.) requested by the driver and the destination is also input, the collection unit 100 determines the distance from the current vehicle location to the destination, whether there is an inclination on the route. The driving information on the route to the input destination, such as the environment of the route and the number of passengers, is collected, and the collection unit 100 collects the collected driving information on the route to the input destination and the remaining oil amount or battery of the current vehicle. The distance the vehicle can travel is calculated based on available energy information such as the remaining capacity. ** the vehicle’s driving mode is adjusted according to the drivable distance)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Haug with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of utilizing a vehicle’s travel distance to determine a factor in which controls the vehicle’s cruise control capabilities to take into account for the adjustment of a longer travel distance compared to a shorter distance. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
However, Lee further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the control factor to be a smaller value as a distance from a current location of the host vehicle to a destination is shorter. (Lee, see at least [0043] wherein when the initial response is input according to the driving mode (dynamic, normal, comfort, etc.) requested by the driver and the destination is also input, the collection unit 100 determines the distance from the current vehicle location to the destination, whether there is an inclination on the route. The driving information on the route to the input destination, such as the environment of the route and the number of passengers, is collected, and the collection unit 100 collects the collected driving information on the route to the input destination and the remaining oil amount or battery of the current vehicle. The distance the vehicle can travel is calculated based on available energy information such as the remaining capacity. ** the vehicle’s driving mode is adjusted according to the drivable distance)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Haug with the teachings of Lee to include the capability of utilizing a vehicle’s travel distance to determine a factor in which controls the vehicle’s cruise control capabilities to take into account for the adjustment of a shorter travel distance compared to a longer distance. This would further improve the managing or controlling of a vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
Haug further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a first set distance to the front vehicle, which is set before the control signal for controlling the fuel efficiency is received, (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle”; see also paragraphs [0002] and [0003], Also see paragraph [0026], “In particular, the parameter sets, stored in program and parameter memory 20, specify for each operating mode an upper limit a_max_N and a_max_E, as well as a lower limit a_min_N and a_min_E for setpoint acceleration a, which is able to be output to drive management 14. The lower limits are negative and consequently state the maximum deceleration of the vehicle that is admissible in each case.”)
and determine a second set distance based on the control factor for adjusting the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle and the set maximum limit for the acceleration of the host vehicle. (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle. In the eco mode it may be expedient to enlarge this time gap, so that more play is available for the dip-in strategy.” Also see at least FIGS. 2 and 3, and paragraph [0027], “As shown in FIG. 2, upper limit a_max_E for the acceleration in eco mode E is smaller than the corresponding upper limit in normal mode N, and lower limit a_min_E in eco mode E is greater than the corresponding lower limit in normal mode N.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 6, (see rejection above)
Haug further discloses wherein the controller is configured to increase the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle by adding the second set distance, determined based on the control factor, to the first set distance, set before the control signal for controlling the fuel efficiency is received. (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle” ** time gap may be enlarged, and therefore, distance would be increased.)
Regarding Claim 8, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
Haug further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a second set maximum limit to an acceleration of the host vehicle, which is smaller than a first set maximum limit to the acceleration of the host vehicle set before the control signal for controlling the fuel efficiency is received, based on the control factor and the first maximum limit to the acceleration of the host vehicle. (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle”; see also paragraphs [0002] and [0003]) Also see at least paragraph [0026], “In particular, the parameter sets, stored in program and parameter memory 20, specify for each operating mode an upper limit a_max_N and a_max_E, as well as a lower limit a_min_N and a_min_E for setpoint acceleration a, which is able to be output to drive management 14. The lower limits are negative and consequently state the maximum deceleration of the vehicle that is admissible in each case.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 8, (see rejection above)
Haug further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the second maximum limit to the acceleration of the host vehicle as a maximum limit to the acceleration of the ACC in a section corresponding to the increased set distance to the front vehicle. (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle”; see also paragraphs [0002] and [0003]) Also see at least paragraph [0026], “In particular, the parameter sets, stored in program and parameter memory 20, specify for each operating mode an upper limit a_max_N and a_max_E, as well as a lower limit a_min_N and a_min_E for setpoint acceleration a, which is able to be output to drive management 14. The lower limits are negative and consequently state the maximum deceleration of the vehicle that is admissible in each case.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Haug in view of Ito discloses The driving assistance apparatus of claim 2, (see rejection above)
wherein the controller is configured to determine a maximum limit to a speed of the ACC based on a speed control factor, which is inversely proportional to the control factor for adjusting the set distance from the host vehicle to the front vehicle and the set maximum limit for the acceleration of the host vehicle, and a speed of the front vehicle. (Haug, see at least paragraph [0018], “Within the scope of the distance control, the setpoint distance is typically dependent on the speed, and it is determined by a time gap, selectable by the driver within certain limits, which gives the distance in time between the preceding vehicle and one's own vehicle”; see also paragraphs [0002] and [0003])
As per claims 12-20, the claim is directed towards a method for assisting driving that recites similar limitations performed by the driving assistance apparatus of claim 1. The cited portions of Haug, Ito, and Lee discloses used in the rejection of claims 2-9 teach the same system limitations of claim 12-20. Therefore, claims 12-20 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 2-9 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230311878 – A vehicle is provided with a control device configured to control a vehicle behavior for driver assistance or automated driving. The control device is configured to set the driving mode at the time of tracking based on the target following distance at the time of tracking making the host vehicle follow a tracked object at the time of driver assistance or the time of automated driving when performing that tracking and to set it to a driving mode by which the allowable range of the acceleration degree at the time of acceleration or deceleration is expanded at least at one of the upper limit side and lower limit side when the set value of the target following distance is small compared to when it is large.
US 20180201262 – A cruise control system, the vehicle including the same, and the method of controlling the cruise control system are provided to improve fuel efficiency by changing control target vehicle speeds by continuously predicting vehicle speeds and variations in required driving forces on roads with various slope variations. Additionally, driving performance is improved by using kinetic energies and preventing unnecessary acceleration and deceleration in comparison with conventional vehicles. Driver convenience and satisfaction is also improved by preventing an unintended operation stop of the cruise control system caused by frequent acceleration and deceleration on roads with substantial slope variations in advance and by preventing unintended acceleration/deceleration on roads with frequent slope variations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664