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 1-9 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 10-11 have been newly added. Claims 3-6 have been withdrawn due to the Election of Species. Thus, claims 1 and 3-11 are currently pending, while claims 1 and 7-11 have been examined in this application.
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 GM (DE 20 2014 009 059 U1, 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.
GM, 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, and the control circuit does not restart the travel control in a case where the driver activates the hazard lamp of the vehicle (see at least [0005-0006] - automatically deactivate the vehicle's cruise control when the hazard warning lights are switched on).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the travel control would not be restarted when the brake is released and in all cases where the speed of the vehicle is less than the ACC entry speed (i.e., including when the vehicle is stopped and when the driver activates a hazard lamp). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have incorporated the teachings of GM into the invention of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to cancel the cruise control to allow the vehicle to coast to a safe stop (GM – [0011]). Kim describes not restarting the control upon releasing the brake and the speed of the vehicle being below the ACC entry speed, which encompasses a wide variety of more specific situations. Implementing not restarting control into a plurality of specific situations (which are encompassed by the situation described by Kim) is considered generally obvious, including the situation taught by GM, and doing so would yield predictable results.
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 GM 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 GM 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 GM and Sekiguchi (JP 2005-1566 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, 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.
GM, 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 [0005-0006] - automatically deactivate the vehicle's cruise control when the hazard warning lights are switched on).
The motivation to combine Kim and GM 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 and the driver not activating the hazard lamp of the vehicle (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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art 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
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 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669