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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of priority for foreign application JP2020-208584, filed 12/16/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 and 02/14/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
In the 08/13/2024 IDS, Cite Nos. 4-15 were not considered since legible copies were not provided, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki of US 20210362713 A1, filed 10/04/2018, hereinafter “Fujimaki”, in view of Huelsebusch of US 20140371974 A1, filed 08/28/2012, hereinafter “Huelsebusch”.
Regarding claim 1, Fujimaki teaches:
A vehicle driving assistance system comprising one or more processors configured to: perform traveling assistance control for automatically controlling an acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically, (See at least Abstract: “A vehicle speed control device 1 mounted in a vehicle comprises…a speed control unit 123 that increases the speed of the host vehicle V.sub.a when the time until overtaking occurs is greater than the time until the prescribed rearward distance is reached.”)
the traveling assistance control including vehicle speed control under which the acceleration of the own vehicle is automatically controlled, (See at least [0042]:” …In FIG. 3B, a case is assumed where that the own vehicle V.sub.a is accelerated is notified in a so-called cruise control state in which the speed control unit 123 controls the speed of the own vehicle V.sub.a…the notification unit 124 notifies by displaying a set vehicle speed currently set and a vehicle speed obtained after temporary acceleration…” & [0036]: “…The speed control unit 123 maintains the speed of the own vehicle V.sub.a in a case where the time it takes for the own vehicle V.sub.a to overtake the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b is equal to or less than the time it takes for the distance between the own vehicle V.sub.a and the following vehicle V.sub.c to be the predetermined rear-side distance…”)
detect a following vehicle that travels on a same lane as the own vehicle; (See at least Fig. 1 & [0050]: “…The rear-side detection unit 122 obtains a speed of and a distance of the following vehicle V.sub.c (step S11)…”)
in the case where a condition is satisfied in which the following vehicle is detected and execution of the vehicle speed control is requested, perform acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle when the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than a vehicle speed of the following vehicle. (See at least Fig. 1 & [0023]: “In a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches from behind quickly while the own vehicle V.sub.a is overtaking the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates. Specifically, in a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches within a predetermined rear-side distance before the own vehicle V.sub.a overtakes the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates…”. See also [0025].)
However, Fujimaki does not explicitly teach vehicle speed control based on a vehicle speed range including a set vehicle speed.
Huelsebusch teaches selecting from different driving strategies, such as, if a following vehicle is absent, then the driving speed varies in a greater range around the setpoint speed than if that vehicle is present (See at least [0061] of Huelsebusch).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Fujimaki’s system with Huelsebusch’s different vehicle ranges including a setpoint speed. Doing so would be obvious since “a more power-saving manner of driving for maintaining a setpoint speed may be achieved by such a greater tolerance range” (See [0022] of Huelsebusch).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimaki teaches:
A vehicle driving assistance system comprising one or more processors configured to: perform traveling assistance control for automatically controlling an acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically, (See at least Abstract: “A vehicle speed control device 1 mounted in a vehicle comprises…a speed control unit 123 that increases the speed of the host vehicle V.sub.a when the time until overtaking occurs is greater than the time until the prescribed rearward distance is reached.”)
the traveling assistance control including first constant-speed control under which the acceleration of the own vehicle is automatically controlled, (See at least [0042]:” …In FIG. 3B, a case is assumed where that the own vehicle V.sub.a is accelerated is notified in a so-called cruise control state in which the speed control unit 123 controls the speed of the own vehicle V.sub.a…the notification unit 124 notifies by displaying a set vehicle speed currently set and a vehicle speed obtained after temporary acceleration…” & [0036]: “…The speed control unit 123 maintains the speed of the own vehicle V.sub.a in a case where the time it takes for the own vehicle V.sub.a to overtake the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b is equal to or less than the time it takes for the distance between the own vehicle V.sub.a and the following vehicle V.sub.c to be the predetermined rear-side distance…”)
detect a following vehicle that travels on a same lane as the own vehicle; (See at least Fig. 1 & [0050]: “…The rear-side detection unit 122 obtains a speed of and a distance of the following vehicle V.sub.c (step S11)…”)
in the case where a predetermined condition is satisfied in which the following vehicle is detected, (See at least Fig. 1 & [0023]: “In a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches from behind quickly while the own vehicle V.sub.a is overtaking the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates. Specifically, in a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches within a predetermined rear-side distance before the own vehicle V.sub.a overtakes the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates…”. See also [0025].)
Fujimaki does not explicitly teach:
…based on a first vehicle-speed range including a set vehicle speed…
second constant-speed control under which the acceleration of the own vehicle is automatically controlled, based on a second vehicle-speed range including the set vehicle speed, such that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is kept substantially equal to the set vehicle speed, the second vehicle-speed range being set larger than the first vehicle-speed range;
…execution of the second constant-speed control is requested…
Huelsebusch teaches:
…based on a first vehicle-speed range including a set vehicle speed… (See at least [0061]: “…In a case in which the driving condition specification requires maintaining the setpoint speed and a relevant following vehicle is absent, control unit 10 determines a driving strategy in which the driving speed varies in a greater range around the setpoint speed than in the case of a driving strategy determined if a relevant following vehicle is present…”)
second constant-speed control under which the acceleration of the own vehicle is automatically controlled, based on a second vehicle-speed range including the set vehicle speed, such that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is kept substantially equal to the set vehicle speed, the second vehicle-speed range being set larger than the first vehicle-speed range; (See at least [0061]: “…In a case in which the driving condition specification requires maintaining the setpoint speed and a relevant following vehicle is absent, control unit 10 determines a driving strategy in which the driving speed varies in a greater range around the setpoint speed than in the case of a driving strategy determined if a relevant following vehicle is present…” & claim 19: “…the selected driving strategy is selected from at least two driving strategies, a first one of which (a) is selected at least partly responsive to a relevant following vehicle not being detected and (b) provides a variation in driving speed in a greater range around the setpoint speed than another of the at least two driving strategies which is selected at least partly responsive to detection of the relevant following vehicle”)
…execution of the second constant-speed control is requested… (See at least Fig. 6, [0055]: “Control unit 10 is configured to, in the case in which (a) the driving condition specification requires an increase of the driving speed and (b) a relevant following vehicle is absent, determine a driving strategy which provides a speed increase phase extending over a longer duration than a strategy determined if a relevant following vehicle is present…” 7 [0062]: “…a driving strategy for maintaining the setpoint speed with substantially less deviation from the setpoint speed is shown using a solid line, corresponding to a driving speed curve which is determined if a following vehicle is present.”)
Although Fujimaki does not explicitly teach vehicle speed control based on different vehicle speed ranges and a second constant speed control, Huelsebusch teaches selecting from different driving strategies, which includes different speed ranges depending on if the following vehicle is present, and increasing vehicle speed if the following vehicle is present, as discussed above. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Fujimaki’s vehicle speed control with Huelsebusch’s vehicle speed control including different speed ranges since “a more power-saving manner of driving for maintaining a setpoint speed may be achieved by such a greater tolerance range” (See [0022] of Huelsebusch).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Huelsebusch additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined condition further includes that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than an upper limit of the second vehicle-speed range. (See at least [0061]: “…The driving strategy determined if a relevant vehicle is absent includes, for example, a phase of a gradual speed increase and, upon reaching an upper threshold V.sub.2 for the speed, a phase of a gradual speed decrease and also, upon reaching a lower threshold V.sub.1 for the speed, again a phase of a gradual speed increase to upper threshold V.sub.2 for the speed…”. See also [0055].)
Regarding claim 5, Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Fujimaki additionally teaches:
wherein the following vehicle is detected based upon a following distance between the own vehicle and the following vehicle being equal to or less than a predetermined following vehicle determination distance. (See at least [0023]: “…in a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches within a predetermined rear-side distance before the own vehicle V.sub.a overtakes the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates. The predetermined rear-side distance is a rear-side inter-vehicle distance that is maintained for safety between the own vehicle V.sub.a and the following vehicle V.sub.c that are in traveling…”)
Regarding claim 6, Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Fujimaki additionally teaches:
wherein the following vehicle is detected based upon a following distance between the own vehicle and the following vehicle being equal to or less than a predetermined following vehicle determination distance. (See at least [0023]: “…in a case where the following vehicle V.sub.c approaches within a predetermined rear-side distance before the own vehicle V.sub.a overtakes the overtaking target vehicle V.sub.b, the own vehicle V.sub.a accelerates. The predetermined rear-side distance is a rear-side inter-vehicle distance that is maintained for safety between the own vehicle V.sub.a and the following vehicle V.sub.c that are in traveling…”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki in view of Huelsebusch and further in view of Schulz of US 20140012478 A1, filed 07/01/2013, hereinafter “Schulz”.
Regarding claim 4, Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the first constant-speed control and not to perform the acceleration control when the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is higher than an upper limit of the second vehicle-speed range, even when the predetermined condition is satisfied.
However, Schulz teaches ending acceleration of the vehicle if a passing process by a vehicle approaching from behind is detected (See at least [0017]) and ending acceleration of the vehicle if the vehicle reaches an admissible maximum speed (See at least [0015]). One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it an obvious design choice to end acceleration of the vehicle both when the vehicle speed is higher than an upper limit of a second vehicle-speed range and when a following vehicle is detected, which provides the benefit of “no rear-end collisions will occur because of safety distances that were too low” (See [0014] of Schulz).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Fujimaki and Huelsebusch’s system with Schulz’s technique of performing the first constant-speed control and not performing the acceleration control when the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is higher than an upper limit of the second vehicle-speed range, even when the predetermined condition is satisfied. Doing so would be obvious so that “no rear-end collisions will occur because of safety distances that were too low” (See [0014] of Schulz).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060015240 A1 is directed to a cruise control system in which a preceding vehicle following cruise control is divided into a low speed region and a high speed region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662