DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2023-092273 filed on 06/05/2023.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Imai (JP2006347528, from IDS) in view of Yasui (US20100082216) and Moriizumi (US20160075313).
Regarding claim 1, Imai teaches a control device comprising:
a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes a program stored in a storage device ([14]-[17] disclosing a processor executing a program stored in a storage device),
thereby acquiring first information related to a curved road that is present in a traveling direction of a vehicle ([25] disclosing acquiring the forward curve road on the traveling direction),
performing, as a deceleration control that causes the vehicle to decelerate so that a speed of the vehicle approaches a target speed based on the first information when the vehicle is traveling in a section from an entrance of the curved road to a predetermined distance before the entrance or on the curved road, a deceleration control that causes the vehicle to decelerate at a first deceleration rate when the vehicle has reached a start point of the section, and causes the vehicle to decelerate at a second deceleration rate greater than the first deceleration rate when the vehicle has approached further toward the entrance of the curved road ([25]-[28] disclosing decelerating the vehicle based on a first deceleration rate A1 from a point S at a predetermined distance from the curve and then decelerating at a second rate from the point A to B wherein point A is a point where the vehicle has approached the entrance of the curve more and the second deceleration is greater than the first deceleration, see figure 2),
Imai does not teach referring to the second information during execution of the deceleration control, and stopping the deceleration control when the amount of a deceleration operation is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount, and wherein the predetermined amount is set to be equal to or greater than the second deceleration rate.
Yasui teaches acquiring second information including an amount of a deceleration operation of a driver of the vehicle ([0047] disclosing obtaining the braking torque indicative of an amount of deceleration operation by a driver of the vehicle),
referring to the second information during execution of the deceleration control, and stopping the deceleration control when the amount of a deceleration operation is equal to or greater than a predetermined amount ([0047] disclosing overriding “stopping” the automatic braking controlling means when the driver’s braking torque is greater than the amount of the automatic greater means), and
wherein the predetermined amount is set to be equal to or greater than the second deceleration rate ([0047] disclosing the predetermined amount is equal to or greater than the target braking for the curve speed control, deceleration control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Yasui with the teaching of Imai yielding predictable results in order to operate the vehicle based on a driver’s intention thus improving driver’s comfortability when a driver feels safer with lower speed than the automatic deceleration speed. The use of specific range or values is an obvious design choice, it would be obvious to substitute the second rate of Imai with the teaching of Yasui yielding predictable results.
Moriizumi further teaches thereby stopping output of a control amount based on the deceleration control after stopping the deceleration control ([0076] disclosing when the driver’s braking is greater than the target control value, the automatic brake control is cancelled, i.e., stopping control by the deceleration control).
the combination/substitution of the cancellation of control as taught by Moriizumi with the termination control as taught by Imai in view of Yasui is obvious yielding predictable results in order to allow the driver to take control of the vehicle thus ensuring safe handover by meeting at least a target braking value and keeping a driver at ease and in control of the vehicle per intention of the driver.
From the combination of Moriizumi and Yasui with the deceleration control two stages of Imai, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention. Yasui and Moriizumi teach comparing the amount of control by the driver to an autonomous control amount to ensure the driver’s intention to override the autonomous system, thus at a second stage that comparison would be with the second deceleration rate yielding predictable results.
Claims 4-5 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Imai (JP2006347528, from IDS) in view of Yasui (US20100082216) and Moriizumi (US20160075313) and Sekine (US20130261889, from IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Imai as modified by Yasui and Moriizumi teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor stops the deceleration control when the amount of a deceleration operation (Yasui [0047] disclosing stopping the automatic deceleration when the amount of braking is greater than a threshold).
Imai as modified by Yasui and Moriizumi does not teach wherein deceleration operation has continued to be equal to or greater than the predetermined amount for a predetermined time or more.
Sekine deceleration operation has continued to be equal to or greater than the predetermined amount for a predetermined time or more ([0108] disclosing a braking amount greater than a threshold for a predetermined amount indicative of a driver operation).
Sekine and Yasui and Moriizumi both teach an intention of a driver based on a braking operation, thus to solve the problem of erroneous determining the intention of the driver based on a deceleration amount, it would be obvious to substitute the teaching of Sekine using the deceleration continuing for a predetermined time yielding predictable results and improving correctness of determination of driver intention.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Imai (JP2006347528, from IDS) in view of Yasui (US20100082216) and Moriizumi (US20160075313) and Kim (US20130325230).
Regarding claim 3, Imai as modified by Yasui and Moriizumi teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor stops the deceleration control when the amount of a deceleration operation (Yasui [0047] disclosing stopping the automatic deceleration when the amount of braking is greater than a threshold).
Imai as modified by Yasui does not teach when an average value of the amount of a deceleration operation for a predetermined time is equal to or greater than the predetermined amount.
Kim teaches an average value of the when amount of a deceleration operation for a predetermined time is equal to or greater than the predetermined amount ([0013] disclosing the average value of a depth of the braking operation during a driving cycle).
Imai and Yasui and Moriizumi both teach an intention of a driver based on a braking operation, thus to solve the problem of erroneous determining the intention of the driver based on a deceleration amount, it would be obvious to substitute the teaching of Kim using the average value of deceleration for a predetermined time yielding predictable results and improving correctness of determination of driver intention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First obviousness Rejection:
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claims that Imai, Yasui, and Moriizumi neither teach nor suggest, in a two-stage deceleration control for entering a curve, a configuration in which an override threshold is set with reference to the second deceleration rate, examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons: First, Imai teaches a vehicle deceleration control that includes at least two stages for entering a curve [25]-[28] and figure 2, secondly, both Yasui and Moriizumi teach comparing an amount of control of the driver to a control amount of the autonomous system “threshold” to determine if the intention of the driver is satisfied. Thus the combination of Yasui and Moriizumi to the two stage deceleration control of Imai is obvious yielding predictable results by determining when the control amount is less than the driver controlled deceleration in order to accurately determine that the driver intends to overcome the vehicle control and not mistakenly touched the pedal.
Thus the combination of Imai, Yasui and Moriizumi teaches the setting of a predetermined amount to be greater than a deceleration amount of a control level of the autonomous vehicle deceleration control, which is obvious to include a first, second control amount based on the design of the control system. Yasui as well teaches the deceleration rate at different stages thus the brake amount compared to the driver braking amount is indicative of at least a first and second thresholds. In anyways, the combination teaches determining the driver intention by comparing the driver braking to the threshold being the autonomous control amount, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teaching of Yasui and Moriizumi to the two stage deceleration amounts to determine the intention of the driver yielding predictable results and avoiding mistaking a light pressing for an intention to stop the autonomous deceleration.
In the same regards, while examiner states that the range of values is a design choice, the combination of Imai and Yasui and Moriizumi already teaches cancelling an autonomous deceleration control based on the comparison of the driver deceleration amount to a control amount of the autonomous system, thus indicative of a first, second and multiple thresholds, thus at least would be applied to the second deceleration rate at the second stage to determine the braking of the driver exceeded the control amount of the autonomous system to ensure the driver intends to cancel the autonomous control.
With respect to the second and third obviousness rejection, Imai as modified by Yasui and Moriizumi already teaches the claim limitations as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20200122633 disclosing an average of decelerations over a threshold to determine a deceleration event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights