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 . Claims 1 and 3-11 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 3-6 remain withdrawn due to the Election of Species. Thus, claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending, while claims 1 and 7-11 have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/27/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2015-0121983 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 10/29/2025 and is being relied upon) in view of Reuter (DE 103 06 136 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a vehicle control device (see at least Fig. 1, [0023]), wherein the vehicle control device is configured to execute travel control of controlling a vehicle such that the vehicle travels at a target speed corresponding to an inter-vehicle distance between a preceding vehicle that travels in front of the vehicle and the vehicle, or a predetermined speed set by a driver of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 3, [0004, 0040] - adaptive cruise control system that travels in accordance with the distance and speed with respect to the preceding vehicle when there is a preceding vehicle and runs at a speed set by the driver when there is no preceding vehicle.), the vehicle control device is configured to temporarily stop the travel control in response to the driver applying a brake of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 3, [0041, 0043] - As a result of the judgment in step S13 above, if a brake input signal is received while operating in ACC mode, the electronic control unit (20) temporarily releases the operation in ACC mode (S15).), and to restart the travel control in response to the driver releasing the brake in the vehicle during travel by the travel control (see at least Fig. 3, [0044, 0048, 0051] - If a brake return signal is received as a result of the judgment in step S17, the electronic control unit (20) determines whether there is a vehicle ahead of the vehicle based on the forward information measured from the radar sensor (S19). Here, the brake return signal includes a signal indicating the position of the brake pedal when the brake pedal is pressed and then released, i.e. when the foot is lifted from the brake pedal… If the speed of the vehicle is greater than the ACC control entry speed as a result of the judgment in step S20, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to step S11 described above so that the temporarily released ACC mode can be reactivated… If the judgment result of the above step S21 is that the vehicle is not in a dangerous situation, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to the above-described step S11 so that the temporarily released ACC mode can be reactivated.), and the vehicle control device includes a control circuit that does not restart the travel control, when the brake is released in a case where the vehicle is stopped (see at least Fig. 3, [0046, 0049-0050, 0052] - If the speed of the vehicle is lower than the ACC control entry speed as a result of the judgment in step S20, the electronic control unit (20) releases the operation of the temporarily released ACC mode (S23)… If the vehicle is in a dangerous situation as a result of the judgment in step S21, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to step S23 described above and releases the operation of the temporarily released ACC mode.).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose the vehicle control device is configured to receive, as an input, an operation content of a hazard lamp that a driver performed using a hazard switch, and the control circuit does not restart the travel control in a case where the driver activates the hazard lamp of the vehicle while temporarily stopping the travel control, and the vehicle control device is configured to restart the travel control in response to the driver releasing the brake when the vehicle control device determines the driver performing a predetermined restart operation that includes an operation of deactivating.
However, Kim does disclose the vehicle control device is configured to receive, an indication that a dangerous situation exists, and the control circuit does not restart the travel control in a case where the dangerous situation exists while temporarily stopping the travel control (see at least Fig. 3, [0052] - If the vehicle is in a dangerous situation as a result of the judgment in step S21 above, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to step S23 described above and disables the operation of the temporarily disabled ACC mode.), and the vehicle control device is configured to restart the travel control in response to the driver releasing the brake when the vehicle control device determines that the dangerous situation is no longer present while temporarily stopping the travel control (see at least Fig. 3, [0051] - If the result of the judgment in step S21 above indicates that the vehicle is not in a dangerous situation, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to step S11 described above so that the temporarily deactivated ACC mode can be reactivated.).
Although Kim does not specifically mention a hazard lamp, Kim does teach that the presence of dangerous situations prevents the speed control from being reactivated when the driver releases the brake pedal, and the absence of dangerous situations enables the speed control to be reactivated when the driver releases the brake pedal. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a variety of dangerous situations could be implemented into Kim’s invention to prevent or enable reactivation of the speed control.
Reuter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the vehicle control device is configured to receive, as an input, an operation content of a hazard lamp that a driver performed using a hazard switch (see at least [0020] – the passenger can activate the easily accessible hazard warning switch, i.e., also capable of being operated by a driver), and the control circuit does not restart the travel control in a case where the driver activates the hazard lamp of the vehicle while temporarily stopping the travel control, and the vehicle control device is configured to restart the travel control when the vehicle control device determines the driver performing a predetermined restart operation that includes an operation of deactivating (see at least [0020] - The passenger can activate the easily accessible hazard warning switch 1, which switches off the control function of the automatic speed control 6… Only when the hazard warning switch is opened again to deactivate the hazard warning system or the vehicle has come to a standstill are the control units 2, 3, 4, which have been put into a safe control state, returned to their original normal control state in order to allow the driver or passenger to take over the now fully functional vehicle. The control function of the automatic speed controller 6 remains switched off until it is set to a desired speed again.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Reuter into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to allow a passenger to deactivate the cruise control function by activation of the easily accessible hazard warning switch, which provides a significant safety advantage in the event of the driver experiencing a problem because it significantly reduces the risk of an accident (Reuter – [0003-0004, 0008, 0020]). Although Reuter describes a passenger activating the hazard warning switch, Reuter also states that the hazard warning switch is in an easily accessible area between the driver and the passenger (Reuter – [0006]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in the event that a driver is driving alone and needs to slow down that they can also conveniently activate the hazard switch to deactivate cruise control.
Kim describes that after the driver releases the brake that dangerous situations are evaluated before allowing the cruise control to be reactivated. If the driver releases the brake but a dangerous situation still exists then the cruise control is not reactivated, and if the driver releases the brake and the dangerous situation is not present then the cruise control can be reactivated. In light of the teachings of Kim and Reuter, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that activation of a hazard switch (as in Reuter) is an indication of a potentially dangerous situation, and that the vehicle should not be allowed to restart the travel control until the hazard switch has been turned back off.
Regarding claims 9-10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 9-10 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 9-10 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Reuter and Ebata (EP 4 056 437 A1, a copy was provided with the Office action dated 10/29/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit further notifies the driver that the travel control is temporarily stopped or that the travel control is restartable, when the travel control is temporarily stopped.
Ebata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control circuit further notifies the driver that the travel control is temporarily stopped or that the travel control is restartable, when the travel control is temporarily stopped (see at least [0028] - it is determined that control by the ACC controller 12 is overridden by the driver's brake pedal operation, and the driver may be notified of ACC cancellation by an HMI apparatus and the shift to manual operation may be performed or the ACC control may be continued by the specified button operation or accelerator pedal operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Ebata into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of notifying the driver of the current status of the ACC so the driver knows what actions they need to take in order to either assume control of the vehicle or to resume ACC control. Generally, it is considered obvious and advantageous to notify the driver when changes to vehicle features occur that may require intervention for improving safety and awareness. Implementing this notification would yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Reuter and Shiraishi (US 2023/0303072 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit restarts the travel control in response to the brake being released and the driver performing a predetermined restart operation, and the restart operation is an operation for starting traveling.
Shiraishi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control circuit restarts the travel control in response to the brake being released and the driver performing a predetermined restart operation, and the restart operation is an operation for starting traveling (see at least [0010] - the driver can early start or resume the travel control (ACC) by only releasing a brake pedal and setting an ACC switch (61, 64) to ON under the state in which the vehicle (100) is stopped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Shiraishi into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of preventing the driver from being annoyed, reliably increasing the convenience of operation, and increasing drivability (Shiraishi – [0010]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Reuter and Sekiguchi (JP 2005-1566 A, a machine translation was provided with the Office action dated 3/5/2026 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit does restart the travel control, when the brake is released in response to the vehicle being stopped and the driver not activating the hazard lamp of the vehicle.
However, Kim does disclose wherein the control circuit does restart the travel control, when the brake is released (see at least Fig. 3, [0044, 0048, 0051] - If a brake return signal is received as a result of the judgment in step S17, the electronic control unit (20) determines whether there is a vehicle ahead of the vehicle based on the forward information measured from the radar sensor (S19). Here, the brake return signal includes a signal indicating the position of the brake pedal when the brake pedal is pressed and then released, i.e. when the foot is lifted from the brake pedal… If the speed of the vehicle is greater than the ACC control entry speed as a result of the judgment in step S20, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to step S11 described above so that the temporarily released ACC mode can be reactivated… If the judgment result of the above step S21 is that the vehicle is not in a dangerous situation, the electronic control unit (20) moves the process to the above-described step S11 so that the temporarily released ACC mode can be reactivated.)
Reuter, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control circuit does restart the travel control, in response to the driver not activating the hazard lamp of the vehicle (see at least [0020] - The passenger can activate the easily accessible hazard warning switch 1, which switches off the control function of the automatic speed control 6… Only when the hazard warning switch is opened again to deactivate the hazard warning system or the vehicle has come to a standstill are the control units 2, 3, 4, which have been put into a safe control state, returned to their original normal control state in order to allow the driver or passenger to take over the now fully functional vehicle. The control function of the automatic speed controller 6 remains switched off until it is set to a desired speed again.).
The motivation to combine Kim and Reuter is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Sekiguchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the control circuit does restart the travel control, when the brake is released in response to the vehicle being stopped (see at least [0041] - On the other hand, if it is determined in step S302 that the vehicle 1 is stopped, the process proceeds to step S303, where it is determined based on information from the forward information recognition device 6 whether or not a preceding vehicle is present within a predetermined distance ahead of the vehicle 1. If it is determined in step S303 that a preceding vehicle is present within a predetermined distance ahead of the host vehicle 1, the process proceeds to step S305, where an instruction to temporarily stop the ACC control is issued, and the routine is exited.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of Sekiguchi into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of determining if the driver intends to continue using ACC or intends to cancel ACC, thereby preventing the driver from feeling uncomfortable due to an unintended change in the control mode of the ACC (Sekiguchi – [0041]). Allowing the vehicle to restart the travel control from a stopped position when that is the driver’s intention eliminates the need to entirely reset any travel control settings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 filed 5/5/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections 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
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is the relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Rames (FR 2936451 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights