DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-11 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 12/10/2025.
(a) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said interpretations.
(b) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
(c) The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.1
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabuchi U.S. P.G. Publication 2015/0307093A1 (hereinafter, Sasabuchi), in view Kuwahara et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0169865A1 (hereinafter, Kuwahara), in further view of Ike U.S. P.G. Publication 2016/0244036A1 (hereinafter, Ike).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasabuchi describes a vehicle control device (vehicle control device, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0048 and Figure 1), comprising: one or more memory devices having a program stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (memory for storing instruction which is operated on by a processor or CPU, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0022 and Figure 1):
…
-estimate a course of the ego vehicle (estimated path of the ego vehicle, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0037);
-assess whether or not there is a possibility that the ego vehicle will collide with the obstacle (collision assessment which determines whether or not the obstacle will collide with the obstacle, Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0041);
-provide the ego vehicle with driving assistance for avoiding collision with the obstacle when it is determined that there is the possibility of collision (collision avoidance assist, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0019);
-set an ego vehicle region in which the ego vehicle exists, an obstacle region in which the obstacle exists (region setting of the ego vehicle and the detected object, Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4);
-predict future location of the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region on the basis of a detection result and an estimation result (estimated path of the ego vehicle and detected object, wherein a region of the objects can be created, Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4);
-assess whether or not the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region overlap at the future location, and assess that the collision possibility exists when the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region overlap; change a size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region from the size of the ego vehicle and/or the obstacle, on the basis of a moving speed of the obstacle …, to set the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4);…
Sasabuchi does not specifically disclose the device to include detect[ing] an obstacle in front of an ego vehicle in a traveling direction of the ego vehicle on a basis of recognition result of an external world recognition device which recognizes a surround environment of the ego vehicle; [and chang[ing] a size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region from the size of the ego vehicle and/or obstacle, on the basis of] … characteristics related to a recognition error of the external world recognition device.
Kuwahara discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kuwahara describes detecting an obstacle in front of an ego vehicle in a traveling direction of the ego vehicle based on an external recognition device (i.e., sensor device that is located outside a vehicle) (Kuwahara, Paragraph 0022 and Figure 1). Moreover, Kuwahara describes the ability to change the size of the obstacle region based on determining a recognition error of the external recognition device (e.g., error in recognizing an obstacle) (Kuwahara, Paragraphs 0060 and 0056).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Sasabuchi to include detecting an obstacle in front of an ego vehicle in a traveling direction of the ego vehicle on a basis of recognition result of an external world recognition device which recognizes a surround environment of the ego vehicle; … [and] changing a size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region from the size of the ego vehicle and/or obstacle, on the basis of … characteristics related to a recognition error of the external world recognition device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kuwahara.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting objects in front of the vehicle may allow for the vehicle to avoid potential collisions and/or avoiding incorrect control of a vehicle based on erroneously collected data (Kuwahara, Paragraph 0005).
However, Sasabuchi and Kuwahara do not specifically disclose control an operation of an automatic emergency brake of the ego vehicle; and set an operation timing of the automatic emergency brake on the basis of the moving speed of the obstacle.
Ike discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ike describes controlling of an emergency brake of the ego vehicle and setting a timing of the brake based on the moving speed of the obstacle (i.e., TTC) (Ike, Paragraphs 0039-0052 and Figures 2 and 3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Sasabuchi to include controlling an operation of an automatic emergency brake of the ego vehicle; and setting an operation timing of the automatic emergency brake on the basis of the moving speed of the obstacle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting objects in front of the vehicle may allow for the vehicle to avoid potential collisions by braking (Ike, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to change, on the basis of the moving speed of the obstacle in a direction crossing the course of the ego vehicle, the size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region in the crossing direction from the size of the ego vehicle and/or the obstacle in the crossing direction, to set the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to set the size of the ego vehicle region (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4) and/or the obstacle region so as to be enlarged as the moving speed of the obstacle becomes faster.
Regarding Claim 4, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors set the size of the ego vehicle region (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4) and/or the obstacle region so as to be reduced as the moving speed of the obstacle becomes slower.
Regarding Claim 6, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors detect a type of the obstacle (detecting objects around the vehicle, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0056 and Figure 4), and the region setting unit changes the size of the ego vehicle region (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4) and/or the obstacle region on the basis of the type of the obstacle.
Regarding Claim 8, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Sasabuchi does not specifically disclose the device to include control alerting of an alarm to an occupant of the ego vehicle and set an alert timing of the alarm on the basis of the moving speed of the obstacle.
Ike describes alerting the occupant of the vehicle, which is based on potential collision and in part the speed of the obstacle (i.e., alert timing) (Ike, Paragraphs 0030-0034 and 0024 and Figures 2-3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Sasabuchi to include control alerting of an alarm to an occupant of the ego vehicle and set an alert timing of the alarm on the basis of the moving speed of the obstacle, or at least suggested by Ike.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because detecting objects in front of the vehicle and alerting the driver may allow for the vehicle to avoid potential collisions (Ike, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding Claim 9, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance control unit includes a brake control unit which controls an operation of an automatic emergency brake of the ego vehicle (collision avoidance, which can include automatic emergency braking, Sasabuchi, Paragraph 0048), when the size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region is enlarged, the overlap assessment unit calculates an overlap rate of the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region in the region whose size has been enlarged (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2), Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4), and the brake control unit sets an operation timing of the automatic emergency brake on the basis of the overlap rate (braking based on detection and speed determination of the object, Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0048 and 0038 and Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Sasabuchi, as modified, describes the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to assess a stability of a traveling behavior of the ego vehicle, and wherein when the size of the ego vehicle region and/or the obstacle region is enlarged and the stability is lower than a threshold value, one or more processors are further configured to invalidate the region whose size has been enlarged, and assess whether or not the ego vehicle region and the obstacle region overlap (overlap assessment which is based on the determined path of the ego vehicle and the detected object, which is based in part of the determined speed, moreover the size of the overlap can change (e.g., H1 vs. J2) based on the vehicle speed or lack of speed, wherein the vehicle not moving (i.e., more stable behavior) means a lower overlap assessment, Sasabuchi, Paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0049-0055 and Figure 4).
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 Applicant amends the independent claim to incorporate a practical application (i.e., “control an operation of an automatic emergency brake of the ego vehicle,” thus overcoming the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.