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 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. The provisional double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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 JP2023-092271 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sekine (JP2006137235, from IDS) in view of Sun (US20230063354).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine teaches a vehicle control device comprising:
a storage device storing a program ([16] disclosing the storage unit); and
a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device to perform ([14]-[18] disclosing a processing unit and executing the program):
acquiring first information on a curved road present in a traveling direction of a vehicle ([20] disclosing acquiring curve information in a traveling direction of the vehicle);
acquiring second information including an amount of accelerating operation of a driver of the vehicle (abstract and [38] disclosing detecting an operation of an acceleration pedal. See also [39] disclosing the detection of the suspended state of an accelerator pedal wherein the acceleration amount is detected and a reaction force is applied to keep the acceleration pedal at the suspended state while the deceleration control is performed);
performing support control comprising one or both of deceleration control for decelerating the vehicle such that a speed of the vehicle approaches a target speed based on the first information and notification control for notifying that the speed of the vehicle approaches the target speed when the vehicle is traveling in a section from an entrance of the curved road to a position at a predetermined distance before the entrance or in the curved road (at least [22]-[23] disclosing calculating a speed of the vehicle to travel the curve acquired, [34]-[35] disclosing the deceleration of the vehicle to the target speed); and
stopping the support control when the amount of accelerating operation increases while the support control is being performed (abstract and [38] disclosing stopping the automatic deceleration when the driver operates the accelerator pedal indicating driver intention to accelerate. [44] disclosing stopping the braking “deceleration support control” when the acceleration of the driver is detected during the execution of the support control).
Sekine does not teach by a predetermined amount or more from a reference value, which is determined based on a specific amount of accelerating operation acquired during the support control with reference to the second information.
Sun teaches by a predetermined amount or more from a reference value, which is determined based on a specific amount of accelerating operation acquired during the support control with reference to the second information ([0104]-[0110], [0110]-[0141] disclosing when the accelerator pedal is changed from a first position “acquired during autonomous control”, to a second position greater than a threshold range, thus it is indicative of a conflict between a drivers intention and the autonomous system).
Sun teaches determining a conflict between the drivers intention and the autonomous vehicle, thus it is obvious to substitute or combine the teaching of Sun with the teachings of Sekine yielding predictable results for increased verification of drivers intention and increasing drivers confidence in the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Sekine as modified by Sun further teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, Specifically, Sun further teaches wherein the specific amount is acquired at a time of a start of the support control ([0104]-[0110], [0110]-[0141] disclosing when the accelerator pedal is changed from a first position “acquired during autonomous control”, to a second position greater than a threshold range, thus it is indicative of a conflict between a drivers intention and the autonomous system. It is interpreted that the amounts are acquired all the time since the start of the control per the teaching of Sun to determine if there is a conflict).
Sun teaches determining a conflict between the drivers intention and the autonomous vehicle, thus it is obvious to substitute or combine the teaching of Sun with the teachings of Sekine yielding predictable results for increased verification of drivers intention and increasing drivers confidence in the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Sekine as modified by Sun further teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, Specifically, Sun further teaches wherein the reference value is set to a minimum value of the amount of accelerating operation while the support control is being performed ([0104]-[0141] disclosing the first position of the accelerating pedal is less than the second position of the acceleration pedal by a range, thus the first position is the minimum amount of accelerating operation while the support control is being performed. It is also interpreted that the first position is the minimum value where the intention starts to be determined and any other lower value is not considered).
Sun teaches determining a conflict between the drivers intention and the autonomous vehicle, thus it is obvious to substitute or combine the teaching of Sun with the teachings of Sekine yielding predictable results for increased verification of drivers intention and increasing drivers confidence in the autonomous vehicle.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection. Sekine teaches the non-transitory medium and the method [14]-[38].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the double patenting rejection, the rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection, the rejection is moot since a new reference is used for the rejection of the amended limitations, see rejection above.
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.
US20100082212 disclosing the intention of driver determined based on the amount increasing from a predetermined amount AP1.
US20040195022 disclosing the driver’s intention based on throttle opening greater than a predetermined amount than the controlled throttle opening.
US20090198426 disclosing curve control wherein the acceleration limit is stopped based on an intention of a driver to accelerate.
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