DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
The amendment filed November 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended. Claim 2 is presently canceled. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-5 are pending in the application. Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
The Remarks filed November 3, 2025 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102” that Sato et al. (JP2015153153A) “does not address the dimensions of the area in front of a host vehicle that is monitored in order to determine whether the conditions for enabling automatic driving are met, or whether conditions or switching to, or maintain, manual driving are in place. Accordingly, D1 [Sato] does not disclose the feature ‘the first condition is satisfied when the processor determines that the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle’.” The applicant that Nishizawa et al. (JP2022/127994 A) does not cure the alleged deficiency of Sato.
The applicant in the Remarks cites paragraphs 0031-0037 in the filed specification, and original claim 2, as providing support for the amendment. Paragraph 0037 recites that the length RO can be the distance between vehicle V2 and the host vehicle. The paragraph adds that: “When the vehicle V2 does not exist, the length of the area RO is about twice the total length of the host vehicle.” See Fig. 2 for V2 being in front of the host vehicle and in the same traveling lane, and V1 being another vehicle in an adjacent lane attempting to cut in to the traveling lane of the host vehicle and V2 and do so in between the host vehicle and V2.
The present claim 1 recites in part
the first condition [for dropping down the assistance level] is satisfied when the processor determines that
the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle or
a predicted time until contact between the host vehicle and the second vehicle falls below a threshold while the following distance adjustment process is performed.
The present published disclosure, Tezuka (US2025/004397) teaches in paragraph 0049 that in flat FXn is set to 1 the system sets “the operation mode MD to the hands-on mode.” But when FXn is set to 0 the system sets the operation mode to hands-off mode. Whether hands are on or off is a “driver assistance level”. According to the above clause the system will “set a driver assistance level…to allow the second vehicle to enter the area in front of the host vehicle”. As shown in Fig. 6A, if there is a vehicle V1 that is highly likely to enter Area Ro (YES out of step 401), and the vehicle V1 is nearby the host vehicle (YES out of 402) than the “condition X31 is satisfied” in step 403. As seen in Fig. 5A, step 203, if “Xn1” is satisfied (YES out of 203), then the flag FXn is set to 1 in step 204. That means hands-on mode is started.
Present claim 1 does not explicitly state that the “driver assistance level” is a hands on or hands off assistance level. Therefore, turning on or off adaptive cruise control (ACC), as in Sato, could meet the definition of setting a driver assistance level.
In Sato, on page 8 of the previously attached English translation, the driver can hit start button 61 for “the start of automatic operation.” The problem the disclosure of Sato solves, according to page 5, is that in prior art that Sato cites on page 5, “when another vehicle has forcibly interrupted [cut-in] between the preceding vehicle and the own vehicle in front of the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling, a situation occurs that the control system of the automatic control operation is difficult to deal with”. Basically, the automatic control operation is itself interrupted. Sato’s invention suppresses the interruption of the automatic control operation to allow it to be active more often. Sato also wants to prevent the automatic control from switching on and off too much. This is discussed on page 19 for the problem that “switching between automatic operation control and manual operation is frequently performed,” as well as a solution to this problem.
Yet there are cases in which automatic operation in Sato will be suppressed. There are at least three scenarios in which this happens. These are discussed on page 16 of Sato, which states that there can be an “interrupted section” defined in advance. This interruption section can be where there is a merge lane, in which there is a history of the host vehicle getting cut in front of. An “interrupted section” can also be a place where the host vehicle gets cut-off in real time as determined by sensor data. This last definition most closely matches the present disclosure, at least in some embodiments. This is discussed on page 16 under section “(1),” which teaches that “when another vehicle interrupted the automatic driving control” of the host vehicle 1 than that section can be saved as an interruption section. This can be in the scenario in Fig. 10, in which vehicle 86 cuts in front of host vehicle 1. See also page 27 for teaching that “the other vehicle [a merging vehicle] changes the lane that is determined in advance at the junction point….accordingly, the other vehicle can change the predetermined lane at the junction”. The host vehicle appears to detect the “other vehicle” because page 27 teaches that “the other vehicle changes the lane that is determined in advance at the junction point” and page 28 teaches that “the other vehicle can make a predetermined lane change at the junction”.
The context of this section, is that the host vehicle is approaching a junction point and slows down so that there is room for the other vehicle to merge in front of it. This can occur while the driver assistance system is still active at the same level as before.
Generally, the system in Sato tries not to turn off the driver assist. For example, as discussed at the bottom of page 26 and the top of page 27, the system “determines that there is a junction point ahead” and increases the following distance between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle to allow a merging vehicle to cut in. But “when there is no junction point ahead” the system will make it “difficult to interrupt,” meaning the system makes it difficult for another vehicle to cut in between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle.
However, Sato teaches that there are still cases in which cut ins can occur, and when they do, Sato drops down in driver assist level and looks ahead to see if another occasion for a drop down is approaching. If so, the system will leave the driver assist level at the lower level. In the examiner’s view, this is essentially what claim 1 teaches, at least in part. This teaching can be found on page 17. If another vehicle cuts in front of the host vehicle, that section is “newly set as an interrupted section.” So despite trying to yield to vehicles on an on-ramp and reducing the inter-vehicle distance when there is not an on-ramp, cut ins still occur. Page 20 also teaches that the system checks to determine “if...the preceding vehicle is present within a predetermined distance from the own vehicle 1.”
Once a cut-in occurs and the host vehicle system will reduce or turn off driver assist and the system will also save that interruption location as one of its “interrupt sections”. The system will then join those sections together using an “ ‘interrupt section joining process’”. When in a connected interrupt section made up of multiple interrupt sections, the assistance level does not increase and then decrease again, as discussed on page 17. Rather is stays at a lower level of assistance.
Sato is less explicit when teaching that another vehicle is highly likely to enter an area in front of the host vehicle. Sato teaches this with respect to an on-ramp, but in that case, it appears that Sato anticipates the cut-in and increases its inter-vehicle following distance ahead of time.
Yet Horiba et al. (US2021/0009127 A1), cited in the applicant’s IDS, and discussed at the end of the last detailed action, teaches especially in Fig. 9, a lane-change prediction system in which a host vehicle can predict if an adjacent vehicle is about to cut in front of the host vehicle. See at least paragraph 0095 for the host vehicle slowing down to increase the inter-vehicle following distance once a cut-in has occurred. See, for example, Fig. 3 attached below. See paragraph 0070 for a “cutting-in vehicle candidate extraction unit 141” that determines that another vehicle is highly likely to cut in front of the host vehicle M. See paragraph 0080 for the system largely ignoring vehicles that cut-in at a large distance in front of the host vehicle. See Fig. 9 for first identifying a cutting-in vehicle in step S120 and then identifying that the cut-in is complete in step 132. The cut-in is identified with “object recognition unit 131,” according to paragraph 0050, which uses sensors such as cameras and radar, as discussed in paragraphs 0035-0036 and 0039. The process is performed so that the host vehicle “can cope with a peripheral situation of the own vehicle M,” according to paragraph 0051.
See Horiba paragraph 0090 for the host vehicle wanting to keep an inter-vehicle following distance of “a predetermined lower limit value (for example, several tens to several hundreds of centimeters).” Several hundreds of centimeters is up to several meters.
Like Sato, Horiba teaches that the host vehicle can tighten up the gap between itself and a forward vehicle in an attempt to disallow another vehicle to merge. This is discussed in paragraph 0096. But in other cases, as taught in paragraph 0098 and 0099, an insistent vehicle or a sudden attempt at merging will cause the host vehicle to yield.
So Sato teaches that cut-ins can still occur even though the host vehicle can sometimes anticipate merging vehicles. When that happens, the system will drop-down in driver assistance level. In Sato it is only when the cut in actually occurs that the system drops down in mode. In the present claim 1, it is the anticipation that the cut-in will occur and further that it actually does occur that the drop down in mode occurs.
Horiba also teaches that sudden cut-ins can occur. And Horiba further teaches in paragraphs 0098-0099 that these can still be anticipated and that the host vehicle can slow down to allow the cut in. Paragraph 0101 teaches that the system can determine that the cut in has been completed.
In essence, claim 1 teaches in part: drop down in driver assistance level when both a cut-in is likely within a predetermined distance in front of the host vehicle and when the cut in actually happens and the TTC is now lower than a threshold. Note that as already discussed, the predetermined distance is related to the TTC threshold. Sato teaches dropping down in mode when the cut in actually happens. Horiba teaches anticipating a cut in within a predetermined distance.
So the concept of determining a cut in is likely and then confirming that it actually happens is in Horiba. Sato adds that once a cut in actually occurs, drop down in driver assistance level. In the examiner’s view, this meets the essence of claim 1.
A great deal of the prior art referenced in the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action teaches that a safe following distance is one car length per 10 miles an hour; that a vehicle can give a following distance of “two car lengths, 10 meters” or more; and that a good safe following distance is “twice the overall length of an average vehicle (for example, approximately five meters).” Thus, for Horiba to teach hundreds of centimeters, which is several meters, in paragraph 0090, meets the present claim 1’s limitation of two car lengths of a standard car, which is a total of five meters.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horiba (US2021/0009127), Fig. 3
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 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 claims contain 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites in its last clauses:
the first condition [for dropping down the assistance level] is satisfied when the processor determines that
the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle or
a predicted time until contact between the host vehicle and the second vehicle falls below a threshold while the following distance adjustment process is performed.
The present published specification teaches in Fig. 6A, step 401, that the system first determines if another vehicle “is highly likely to enter area R0”. This is discussed in paragraph 0086. Paragraph 0053 teaches that “the length of the area R0 is about twice the total length of the host vehicle.” This supports the second-to-last clause.
But Fig. 6A shows that there are cases in which another vehicle is likely to enter the area R0, and yet that vehicle is not within an inter-vehicle threshold, which the specification makes synonymous with a TTC threshold. In other words, according to Fig. 6A, it is possible to have a YES out of step 401 but a NO out of step 402.
Thus, the question arises about whether or not the present claim lacks written description for the “or” construction in the last clauses of the claim. The disclosure does not teach that the first condition is satisfied when another vehicle is likely to cut in within twice a total length of the host vehicle “or” the TTC is within a threshold, as claimed in the last clauses of claim 1. Rather, it is when another vehicle is likely to cut in within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle and the TTC is within a threshold.
That is a reasonable interpretation of the disclosure. Otherwise, this “or” construction could essentially mean: drop down in driver assistance simply when
a predicted time until contact between the host vehicle and the second vehicle falls below a threshold while the following distance adjustment process is performed.
This written description rejection is reasonable even though it is reasonable to interpret Fig. 6A as teaching that step 401 is a determination of whether a vehicle V1 is “likely” to cut in, whereas step 402 is an actual measurement performed after vehicle V1 has actually done the deed.
It appears from the disclosure that the host vehicle wants to keep a distance of about the length of R0 between itself and whatever vehicle is in front of it. This is seen in Figs. 2 and 3. It appears that the desired inter-vehicle distance that the host vehicle wants to achieve after a cut in, which in the threshold Δd1th (or its equivalent TTC1th), is in fact the length of area R0, which is about two car lengths of the host vehicle, according to paragraph 0053. The present disclosure never explicitly says this, but it is a reasonable interpretation of Figs. 2 and 3.
Yet there could reasonably be cases in which there is no vehicle in front of the host vehicle in its current traveling lane, and another vehicle comes along and cuts in front of the host vehicle but does so at such a great distance in front of the host vehicle that Fig. 6A returns a NO out of step 401. A broad reasonable interpretation of the disclosure as embodied in Fig. 6A is that the host vehicle determines that another vehicle is likely to cut in to area R0, and then (not “or”) the host vehicle detects in step 402 that that the cut-in has actually happened, and then host vehicle slows down to re-achieve a distance the length of R0 between itself and the new vehicle in front of it. Since Fig. 6A requires an “and” construction, the “or” construction in the last two clauses of claim 1 will be interpreted as “and” for examination purposes.
Claim 5 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
measure an elapsed time since a first time point at which the processor determined that the first condition was satisfied, and
determine that the second condition is satisfied in a situation where the elapsed time is less than a threshold once the second vehicle is no longer detectable after the first time point.
In the present disclosure, the “elapsed time (Δt)” is discussed in paragraph 0022 as “since a first time point at which determination was made that the first condition was satisfied. Paragraph 0088, which is related to the present claim, recites that the system determines if the condition X31 is satisfied. The CPU then starts measuring the elapsed time Δt.” Condition X31 is satisfied in Fig. 4, step 403. It does not start counting the elapsed time “once the second vehicle is no longer detectable after the first time point” but rather it starts counting “since a first time point” which is when the first condition was satisfied. Paragraphs 0092-0093, which discuss Fig. 5, step 503 do not state that “when” or “once,” which is new matter, the cutting in vehicle is no longer detectable, then the counting of the elapsed time begins. Nor, as implied in the claim, does the determination of a second condition become satisfied inside a time limit and further “once the second vehicle is no longer detectable”. For examination purposes, the “once” in the present claim can also be interpreted as “even if”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2015/153153A) in view of Horiba (US2021/0009127).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches:
A driver assistance device that assists a driver in performing in a driving maneuver of a host vehicle, the driver assistance device comprising (see Fig. 1 for a driver assistance device. This device includes “an inter-vehicle distance setting means,” according to page 6 of the disclosure, therefore, the driver assistance device in Sato can reasonably be interpreted as being or having adaptive cruise control (ACC).):
an in-vehicle sensor configured to acquire target information about a second vehicle that istraveling in a second travel lane that is adjacent to a first travel lane in which the host vehicle is traveling (see Fig. 10 for detecting vehicle 86 attempting to cut in on host vehicle 1.); and
a processor configured to:
determine whether the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the first travel lane in an area in front of the host vehicle (see Fig. 1 for ECU and page 8 for the ECU controlling automatic driving. See page 8 for the driver being able to start the driver assist. See page 9 for the start of driver assist not necessarily having to be started by the driver, however. See page 5 the attached English translation for the teaching that the general premise of the disclosure of Sato is that a host vehicle may be following a preceding vehicle but “another vehicle” may interrupt “between the preceding vehicle and the own [host] vehicle in front of the lane in which the host vehicle is traveling”. This can cause the “automatic control operation,” which can reasonably be interpreted as ACC, to be “interrupted.” The goal of the disclosure of Sato “suppressing interruption of automatic driving” including preventing the automatic driving from turning back on too quickly. See page 19 for the problem that “switching between automatic operation control and manual operation is frequently performed,” as well as a solution to this problem. See page 16 for “interrupted section” where the host vehicle gets cut off being a place where the host vehicle gets cut-off in real time as determined by sensor data. This last definition most closely matches the present disclosure, at least in some embodiments. This is discussed on page 16 under section “(1),” which teaches that “when another vehicle interrupted the automatic driving control” of the host vehicle 1 than that section can be saved as an interruption section. This can be in the scenario in Fig. 10, in which vehicle 86 cuts in front of host vehicle 1. See also page 27 for teaching that “the other vehicle [a merging vehicle] changes the lane that is determined in advance at the junction point….accordingly, the other vehicle can change the predetermined lane at the junction”. The host vehicle appears to detect the “other vehicle” because page 27 teaches that “the other vehicle changes the lane that is determined in advance at the junction point” and page 28 teaches that “the other vehicle can make a predetermined lane change at the junction”.);
set a driver assistance level of a following distance adjustment process to allow the second vehicle to enter the area in front of the host vehicle,
the following distance adjustment process being performed based on the target information (see Sato, the bottom of page 26 and the top of page 27, the system “determines that there is a junction point ahead” and increases the following distance between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle to allow a merging vehicle to cut in. But “when there is no junction point ahead” the system will make it “difficult to interrupt,” meaning the system makes it difficult for another vehicle to cut in between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle.) and
the driver assistance level being a degree of assistance provided to the driver in the following distance adjustment process (see page 17 for making “changes to the control content of the automatic driving control” depending on the situation. This can include suppressing the ACC temporarily, which is a lower level than having it on all the time. See the bottom of page 26 and the top of page 27 for a system that “determines that there is a junction point ahead” and increases the following distance between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle to allow a merging vehicle to cut in. But “when there is no junction point ahead” the system will make it “difficult to interrupt,” meaning difficult to cut in between the host vehicle and a forward vehicle. Sato teaches at the top of page 27 that this process makes it “possible to suppress interruption of automatic operation due to interruption,” meaning due another vehicle cutting in when there is no merge lane, which requires a cut in.);
control either or both of a drive device of the host vehicle or a braking device of the host vehiclto perform the following distance adjustment process at the determined driver assistance level when the processor determines that the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the first travel lane in the area in front of the host vehicle (Sato teaches on pages 20 and 21 that if the host vehicle is cut in front of by another vehicle, or if that is predicted as shown in Fig. 10, the host vehicle will slow down to generate a space for the entering vehicle and provide a safe inter-vehicle following distance. Sato teaches that the host vehicle can get cut off and thus suppress ACC. The system, according to page 18, can also predict that such a cut-off will happen again within an “upper limit time,” such as 1 minute, or if the “required time Z is less than the time threshold,” or if the “distance L3 between the first interrupt interval and the second interruption interval is equal to or less than the distance threshold (for example, 1 km)” When that happens, the system will combine the interrupted sections together and suppress the ACC across the entire new section.);
change the driver assistance level of the following distance adjustment process from a first level to a second level when a first condition is satisfied while the following distance adjustment process is performed at the first level (Sato teaches on pages 20 and 21 that if the host vehicle is cut in front of by another vehicle, or if that is predicted, the host vehicle will slow down to generate a space for the entering vehicle and provide a safe inter-vehicle following distance. Sato teaches that the host vehicle can get cut off and thus suppress ACC. But the system, according to page 18, can also predict that such a cut-off will happen again within an “upper limit time,” such as 1 minute, or if the “required time Z is less than the time threshold,” or if the “distance L3 between the first interrupt interval and the second interruption interval is equal to or less than the distance threshold (for example, 1 km)” When that happens, the system will combine the interrupted sections together and suppress the ACC across the entire new section)
maintain the driver assistance level at the second level during a period in which a second condition is satisfied, wherein
the first condition is defined in advance as a condition for lowering the driver assistance level (see page 17 for making “changes to the control content of the automatic driving control” depending on the situation. This can include suppressing the ACC temporarily, which is a lower level than having it on all the time),
the second level is lower than the first level (see page 17 for making “changes to the control content of the automatic driving control” depending on the situation. This can include suppressing the ACC temporarily, which is a lower level than having it on all the time), and
the second condition is defined in advance as a condition for determining that a situation is that the first condition is highly likely to be satisfied (see page 17 for making “changes to the control content of the automatic driving control” depending on the situation. This can include suppressing the ACC temporarily, which is a lower level than having it on all the time), and
the first condition is satisfied when the processor determines that
a predicted time until contact between the host vehicle and the second vehicle falls below a threshold while the following distance adjustment process is performed (see Sato page 5 for the inter-vehicle distance being “longer than the distance traveled for a predetermine time at a the speed” of the vehicles. It is known in the prior art that a vehicle will slow down when the time to collision (TTC) becomes lower than a predetermined threshold. See Sato page 5 for another vehicle “forcibly” interrupting between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle and therefore the host vehicle suppressing the ACC. The suppression of the ACC is obviously based on either distance or TTC, which the disclosure calls “dynamic information”. In this example, the fact that there originally was a preceding vehicle is irrelevant. What matters for the claim rejection is that a vehicle cuts in front of the host vehicle such as the TTC is lower than a predetermined amount, and in response, the host vehicle determines to drop down its autonomy level. Sato teaches this on page 5.).
Yet Sato does not further explicitly teach:
the first condition is satisfied when the processor determines that
the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle or.
However, Horiba teaches:
the first condition is satisfied when the processor determines that
the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle (see Fig. 9, step S120 and paragraphs 0095-0097. A great deal of the prior art referenced in the “Additional Art” section of this detailed action teaches that a safe following distance is one car length per 10 miles an hour; that a vehicle can give a following distance of “two car lengths, 10 meters” or more; and that a good safe following distance is “twice the overall length of an average vehicle (for example, approximately five meters).” Thus, for Horiba to teach hundreds of centimeters, which is several meters, in paragraph 0090, meets the present claim 1’s limitation of two car lengths of a standard car, which is a total of around five meters.) or.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sato, to add the additional features of the first condition is satisfied when the processor determines that the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area in front of the host vehicle within a distance of twice a total length of the host vehicle, as taught by Horiba. The motivation for doing so would be to perform appropriate behavior when another vehicle is entering one’s own lane, as recognized by Horiba (see paragraph 0005).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 3, Sato and Horiba teach the driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1.
Sato further teaches:
The driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1, to:
wherein the processor is further configured determine that the second condition is satisfied when the host vehicle is traveling in a merging section of a travel lane (see Sato Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Sato and Horiba teach the driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1.
Sato further teaches:
The driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1, to:
wherein the processor is further configured determine that the second condition is satisfied in a situation that a third vehicle different from the second vehicle is highly likely to enter the area (recall that in claim 2, “an area” is the area directly in front of the host vehicle. With that in mind, note that one idea in Sato is that interrupt sections, which are sections of road in which the host vehicle gets cut-off or has gotten cut off, can be combined when they are close together in terms of distance or travel time. There is no limit to how many sections can be combined to prevent the ACC system from switching back and forth between on and off too much. If the host vehicle in Sato got cut off, meaning that a vehicle cut in front of it, and then the host vehicle recognized that a merge point with still another vehicle different from the other vehicle is approaching and highly like to cut in front of the host vehicle, than the system as disclosed by Sato would recognize that and suppress the switching of the ACC back on because the system knowns that it is only going to be turned off again soon. Thus Sato teaches this clause.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Horiba in further view of Nishizawa et al. (JP2022/127994 A).
Regarding claim 5, Sato and Horiba teach the driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1.
Sato further teaches:
The driver assistance device according to claim [[2]]1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
measure an elapsed time since a first time point at which the processor determined that the first condition was satisfied (recall that from claim 1, that, in part, the first condition is satisfied when a distance between the host vehicle and the other vehicle becomes less than a threshold. So the first condition can be understood in part as the case in which the host vehicle gets cut off by another vehicle cutting in in front of it. Claim 5 states that “a first time” is the time at which the cut in is first detected. The claim further states that when the other vehicle becomes “no longer detectable” after this cut in is first detected, “determine that the second condition is satisfied” as long as it has been less than a predetermined time since the cut in was first detected. What this means, in a broad reasonable interpretation, is: if the system determines to reduce the level of driver assistance, such as suppress the ACC, make sure you suppress it for at least a minimum amount of time. Don’t turn off the ACC, suddenly lose track of the preceding vehicle, and then turn it right back on again. With that in mind, see Sato page 18 for a system that measures a “required time Z”. That time Z begins at the point at which the host vehicle was first interrupted. See Sato page 18 for a system that measures a “required time Z”. That time Z begins at the point at which the host vehicle was first interrupted. The ACC will not be turned on again until the time Z has expired or another interruption occurs.), and
(the system, according to Sato page 18, can also predict that such a cut-off will happen again within an “upper limit time,” such as 1 minute, or if the “required time Z is less than the time threshold,” or if the “distance L3 between the first interrupt interval and the second interruption interval is equal to or less than the distance threshold (for example, 1 km)” When that happens, the system will combine the interrupted sections together and suppress the ACC across the entire new section.)
Yet Sato does not teach:
once the second vehicle is no longer detectable after the first time point.
However, Nishizawa teaches:
once the second vehicle is no longer detectable after the first time point (see page 12 of the attached English translation for a problem that in conditions of poor visibility when an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system cannot easily see a preceding vehicle, the host vehicle may accelerate. This can lead to “frequent switching” between ACC being activate and prohibited. The problem is that a preceding vehicle was identified, then the host vehicle begins to increase the inter-vehicle distance. But then the host vehicle loses sight of the preceding vehicle, thinks that the driving lane ahead is clear of vehicles, and begins to accelerate. As a result, the host vehicle drives too close to the preceding vehicle which only becomes visible again at the last minute. Then the vehicle needs to brake again. This frequent switching makes the driver uncomfortable. This interpretation is also discussed on page 13 in which a “preceding vehicle A [is] used in adaptive cruise control” and then, due to poor visibility, there is the “possibility that the own vehicle 1 [the host vehicle] will suddenly approach the preceding vehicle A.”).
In summary, Sato teaches that once the ACC is suppressed, it should stay that way for a time threshold Z. Sato does not consider that poor visibility may lead to a case of frequently ACC switching, but the problem stated by Sato is otherwise nearly identical, namely frequent switching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sato, to add the additional features of when the other vehicle becomes no longer detectable after the first time point, as taught by Nishizawa. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent the driver from becoming “uneasy,” as recognized by Nishizawa (see page 12).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seaman (U.S. 3,850,041) teaches in col. 1, lines 9-25 that “it is desirable that the separation between vehicles be greater than one car length for each 10 miles per hour of vehicle speed”. This reasonably means that at twenty miles per hour a host vehicle would leave 2 car lengths of distance.
Gustafson (U.S. 6,014,601) for teaching in col. 4, lines 40-50 a “processing unit 38A” that “calculates a safe following distance based on vehicle speed and road conditions….A common calculation for safe following distance is one car length per 10 miles per hour of vehicle speed. Slick road conditions reduce the safe following distance.” This reasonably means that at twenty miles per hour a host vehicle would leave 2 car lengths of distance.
Wahlbin et al. (US2002/0049619), see paragraphs 0184 and 0188 for formulas related to safe following distances.
Mene et al. (US2024/0169833) See paragraph 0048 for a system that includes a “set of rules which dictates positional requirements of vehicles within a vehicle set with respect to each other and/or the environment.” One rule is maintaining “vertical spacing (i.e., following distance) between vehicle (e.g., two car lengths, 10 meters, 20 meters, etc)”. See Fig. 4, YES out of step 425, for determining that a “vehicle [is] non-compliant” with the ruleset. In that case, guidance will be generated to obtain compliance in step 430. See paragraph 0087 for actions taken to comply with the rules including instructions to brake, slow down, accelerate, or speed up. See paragraphs 0019-0020 for the disclosure relating to vehicles “within the group” and enforcing rules “among vehicles within the group.” This can include when the vehicles are traveling together in a parade or funeral, according to paragraph 0003. Yet because all the vehicles have to be in the same cooperating group and because lane changes and cut-in are unlikely in this scenario, Mene is of limited applicability to the present disclosure.
Cho et al. (US2023/0303065). Cho teaches in Fig. 2 that a host vehicle 40 can monitor an area R1 in front of the host vehicle. The last sentence of paragraph 0033 teaches that “The length of the detection range R1 in the traveling direction is from the leading end of the host vehicle 40 to the leading end of the preceding vehicle 41.” Paragraph 0034 teaches that “the length [of R1] in the traveling direction may be from the leading end of the host vehicle 40 to the rear end of the preceding vehicle 41.” When vehicle 40 comes to a stop, the width of the detection area increases to determine if any pedestrians might cross in front of the host vehicle. Paragraph 0038 teaches that the width of R3 can be twice the host vehicle width, or 3m, and the length can be the same as in the case of R1, or “10 m although these values are not particularly limited.” Even if it were argued that the range discussed in Cho covers the range in present claim 1, the situation in Cho is explicitly when the host vehicle is stopped. This is proven by the specification and also by Fig. 5, YES out of step S101. See paragraph 0096 for autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles receiving instructions to make them conform to the ruleset.
Tomioka et al. (US2023/0234582). See paragraph 0040 for the teaching that a
[0040] The predetermined distance X0 is set to an average inter-vehicle distance during traffic congestion, and is set to, for example, about twice the overall length of an average vehicle (for example, approximately five meters). The passing point setting unit 13 may set an actual inter-vehicle distance from the own vehicle 1 to the preceding vehicle 4a that has been detected by the distance sensor 9, as the predetermined distance X0.
Rajab et al. (US20190329777). See Fig. 5 and paragraph 0067 for an embodiment in which “the following vehicle 510 is the host vehicle” and “the lane changing vehicle” is “vehicle 506”. The system will then determine if the “first gap length 518” is large enough to accommodate the lane change. If not, vehicle 510 will adjust its “position, speed, acceleration, [or] braking…to increase the first gap length 518”. See paragraph 0068 for the teaching that “The first gap length 518 may be compared to a gap threshold value to determine whether the first gap 516 is of sufficient size to accommodate the lane changing vehicle 506. In some embodiments, the gap threshold is twice the length of the lane changing vehicle 506.” Note that in Fig. 5, vehicles 510 and 506 are the same length. Therefore, “twice the length of the lane changing vehicle 506” is the same as twice of the length of the host vehicle. Paragraphs 0067-0068 in fact makes vehicles 510 and 506 interchangeable in terms of which one is the host vehicle.
Xu et al. (US2022/0048513) See paragraph 0060 for: “In one embodiment, the gap determinant module 122 may be configured to identify a gap that is at least twice the length of the ego vehicle 102.”
Standard (CN116844328A). See page 5 of the attached English translation for the teaching that “the length of the gap between the two vehicles can be estimated based on the positions of the two vehicles on the target lane and the preset standard length. For example, the gap length between the two vehicles is set to be greater than 1.5 times the preset standard length or if the gap length is less than 1.5 times or 2 times the preset standard length, it is considered an invalid gap. This gap is not considered to ensure that the requested vehicle has enough gap length to merge. This ensures the safety of each vehicle. See the previous paragraph on the same page for the teaching that the “present standard length” is the “present standard vehicle length”.
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 DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665