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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application.
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.
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 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, the arguments are Moot Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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.
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