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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the current amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mangal (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0039268).
Regarding claim 1, Mangal discloses a vehicle control apparatus configured to execute a first control for reducing a collision possibility between a vehicle and a collision target when the collision possibility satisfies a predetermined collision condition, and a second control for controlling a steered angle of the vehicle so as to suppress the vehicle from deviating from a traveling area defined by a boundary [0013, as shown in Figure 2: “The controller 40 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in an automated-mode 54 where the controller 40, for example, steers the host-vehicle 12 toward a desired-position 56 of a travel-lane 58 using the vehicle-controls 60. The desired-position 56 may be, but is not required to be, the center of the travel-lane 58”; 0016: “The controller 40 is also configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in a monitored-mode 64 where, for example, the operator 14 steers the host-vehicle 12 and the controller 40 assists the operator 14 to steer the host-vehicle 12 toward the desired-position 56 when the host-vehicle 12 is farther than a lateral-threshold 66 from the desired-position 56…By way of another non-limiting example, if while operating in the monitored-mode 64 the operator 14 becomes too close to another vehicle (not shown) forward of the host-vehicle 12, i.e. the operator 14 is tail-gating another vehicle, the controller 40 may momentarily override the operation of the accelerator and/or the brakes to establish a safer following distance for the host-vehicle 12”],
wherein,
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to:
determine whether or not the collision target satisfies a predetermined prohibition condition [0014-0015, 0018-0019],
prohibit an execution of the second control when the collision target satisfies the prohibition condition [0014-0015, 0018-0019]; and
permit the execution of the second control when the collision target does not satisfy the prohibition condition [the lane keeping control is permitted in the automatic and monitored modes, but is prohibited when switching to the manual mode where the collision target is a vehicle ahead of the controlled vehicle that is involved in a traffic situation such as a vehicle accident, 0014-0015: “The controller 40 is also configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in a manual-mode 62 where the operator 14 at least steers the host-vehicle 12…It is also contemplated that some safety systems would still be active such as automatic-braking that engages to prevent a collision, or dynamic vehicle control that assists the operator 14 to recover from a skid. A general characteristic of the safety systems that would still be active while operating in the manual-mode 62 is that the operator 14 would not detect that those safety-systems were active unless the safety-system acted in some way to assist the operator 14 in an emergency situation. It is envisioned that safety systems like a lane-keeping-system would be deactivated to prevent undue interference with control of the host-vehicle 12 by the operator 14. In particular, the operator 14 would be able to drive on a shoulder (not shown) of the roadway 34 without interference by the lane-keeping-system. The general purpose of the manual-mode 62 is to provide the option to the operator 14 to drive the host-vehicle 12…when the controller 40 is unable to navigate or operate the host-vehicle 12 through the traffic-scenario 44. For example, if it is necessary to momentarily steer the host-vehicle 12 off of the roadway 34 to navigate around the aforementioned multi-vehicle accident, it may be prudent to have the operator 14 control the host-vehicle 12 rather than rely on the controller 40 to control the host-vehicle in such a rather complex and unpredictable example of the traffic-scenario 44”; 0018-0019: “…the controller 40 transitions from the automated-mode 54 to the monitored-mode 64 prior to arrival at the traffic-scenario 44 that requires the manual-mode 62…Once the skill-ranking 68 is determined, i.e. a most recent or a present-ranking 70 of the operator 14 is recorded, the controller 40 may confidently transition from the automated-mode 54 to the manual-mode 62”].
Regarding claim 2, Mangal further discloses wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to determine that the collision target satisfies the prohibition condition when the collision target is a movable particular target [0011, 0016, the collision target may be a vehicle forward of the controlled vehicle, which is a movable target].
Regarding claim 5, Mangal discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a processor to execute processing comprising:
executing a first control for reducing a collision possibility between a vehicle and a collision target when the collision possibility satisfies a predetermined collision condition, and a second control for controlling a steered angle of the vehicle so as to suppress the vehicle from deviating from a traveling area defined by a boundary [0013, as shown in Figure 2: “The controller 40 is configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in an automated-mode 54 where the controller 40, for example, steers the host-vehicle 12 toward a desired-position 56 of a travel-lane 58 using the vehicle-controls 60. The desired-position 56 may be, but is not required to be, the center of the travel-lane 58”; 0016: “The controller 40 is also configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in a monitored-mode 64 where, for example, the operator 14 steers the host-vehicle 12 and the controller 40 assists the operator 14 to steer the host-vehicle 12 toward the desired-position 56 when the host-vehicle 12 is farther than a lateral-threshold 66 from the desired-position 56…By way of another non-limiting example, if while operating in the monitored-mode 64 the operator 14 becomes too close to another vehicle (not shown) forward of the host-vehicle 12, i.e. the operator 14 is tail-gating another vehicle, the controller 40 may momentarily override the operation of the accelerator and/or the brakes to establish a safer following distance for the host-vehicle 12”],
determining whether or not the collision target satisfies a predetermined prohibition condition [0014-0015, 0018-0019],
prohibiting an execution of the second control when the collision target satisfies the prohibition condition [0014-0015, 0018-0019]; and
permitting the execution of the second control when the collision target does not satisfy the prohibition condition [the lane keeping control is permitted in the automatic and monitored modes, but is prohibited when switching to the manual mode where the collision target is a vehicle ahead of the controlled vehicle that is involved in a traffic situation such as a vehicle accident, 0014-0015: “The controller 40 is also configured to operate the host-vehicle 12 in a manual-mode 62 where the operator 14 at least steers the host-vehicle 12…It is also contemplated that some safety systems would still be active such as automatic-braking that engages to prevent a collision, or dynamic vehicle control that assists the operator 14 to recover from a skid. A general characteristic of the safety systems that would still be active while operating in the manual-mode 62 is that the operator 14 would not detect that those safety-systems were active unless the safety-system acted in some way to assist the operator 14 in an emergency situation. It is envisioned that safety systems like a lane-keeping-system would be deactivated to prevent undue interference with control of the host-vehicle 12 by the operator 14. In particular, the operator 14 would be able to drive on a shoulder (not shown) of the roadway 34 without interference by the lane-keeping-system. The general purpose of the manual-mode 62 is to provide the option to the operator 14 to drive the host-vehicle 12…when the controller 40 is unable to navigate or operate the host-vehicle 12 through the traffic-scenario 44. For example, if it is necessary to momentarily steer the host-vehicle 12 off of the roadway 34 to navigate around the aforementioned multi-vehicle accident, it may be prudent to have the operator 14 control the host-vehicle 12 rather than rely on the controller 40 to control the host-vehicle in such a rather complex and unpredictable example of the traffic-scenario 44”; 0018-0019: “…the controller 40 transitions from the automated-mode 54 to the monitored-mode 64 prior to arrival at the traffic-scenario 44 that requires the manual-mode 62…Once the skill-ranking 68 is determined, i.e. a most recent or a present-ranking 70 of the operator 14 is recorded, the controller 40 may confidently transition from the automated-mode 54 to the manual-mode 62”].
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangal (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0039268) in view of Farmer (US Patent Number 6,085,151).
Regarding claim 3, Mangal discloses the apparatus of claim 2 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to set a pedestrian and a two-wheeled vehicle as the movable particular target in advance.
Farmer discloses a vehicle control apparatus configured to execute a first control for reducing a collision possibility between a vehicle and a collision target when the collision possibility satisfies a predetermined condition, wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to set a pedestrian and a two-wheeled vehicle as the movable particular target in advance (Col. 6, lines 14-36).
Farmer teaches that in addition to other vehicles, pedestrians and two-wheeled vehicles such as bicycles and motorcycles are examples of non-stationary objects that may potentially collide with the controlled, host vehicle (Col. 6, lines 14-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first control of the control apparatus disclosed by Mangal to, in addition to setting other vehicles as the movable particular target, set pedestrians and two-wheeled vehicles as the target since these are movable objects commonly encountered while driving that pose a threat of colliding with the controlled vehicle.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangal (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0039268) in view of Yoshiji (JP 2009-023560 A).
Regarding claim 4, Mangal discloses the apparatus of claim 2 wherein the vehicle control apparatus is configured to determine that the collision target satisfies the prohibition condition when the collision target is the movable particular target as discussed above, but does not disclose satisfaction of the prohibition condition including the collision target being located outside the boundary.
Yoshiji discloses a vehicle control apparatus configured to determine a collision target, as a vehicle or pedestrian, satisfies a predetermined prohibition condition that prohibits execution of a second control for controlling a steered angle of the vehicle so as to suppress the vehicle from deviating from a traveling area defined by a boundary when the vehicle or pedestrian is located outside a boundary [0032-0033, 0036-0037, 0066-0067].
Yoshiji teaches that a collision target in the area around the controlled vehicle but not on the road on which the vehicle travels may collide with the controlled vehicle if there is a possibility that the target moves onto the road, such as in the case of an emergency vehicle crossing multiple lanes. Yoshiji teaches that suspending the second control allows the vehicle to travel to a shoulder of the road so as not to obstruct the emergency vehicle or to allow a driver to avoid approaching pedestrians or other objects [0043, 0066-0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a vehicle as the collision target for determining satisfaction of the prohibition condition disclosed by Mangal when the vehicle is in the area around the vehicle but outside the lane of the controlled vehicle if there is a possibility that the vehicle enters the lane of the controlled vehicle to avoid a collision by allowing the driver to take action that moves the vehicle out of its traveling lane or to avoid obstruction of emergency vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights