CTFR 18/803,008 CTFR 97518 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are addressed below. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “Fujimaki does not teach or suggest comparison between a vehicle speed of the own vehicle and a vehicle speed of the following vehicle, and thus fails to disclose “perform acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than a vehicle speed of the following vehicle””. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument is not directed to the claim as written because claim 1 does not positively recite comparing vehicle speeds and therefore does not require such a step to be performed. The claim recites that acceleration control is “based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than a vehicle speed of the following vehicle”. Since the term “based on” is used broadly in the claim, the BRI of the claim requires that the speed of the own vehicle is lower than the speed of the following vehicle at any time, which can still occur without actively comparing vehicle speeds. Regarding claim 2, Applicant further argues “Huelsebusch is silent regarding a request for execution of the second constant-speed control”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection, [0055] & [0061-0062] of Huelsebusch recite a control unit that determines a particular driving strategy when the driving condition specification requires an increase in driving speed (i.e., a request), where the driving strategy maintains a setpoint speed. Additionally, [0064] of Huelsebusch recites “…when driving at constant speed with a free rear area behind the vehicle, the speed can be varied in a greater range…”. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/02/2026 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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, based on a vehicle speed range including a set vehicle speed , such that a vehicle speed of the own vehicle is kept substantially equal to the set vehicle speed; (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 based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being 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, based on a first vehicle-speed range including a set vehicle speed , such that a vehicle speed of the own vehicle is kept substantially equal to the set vehicle speed, and (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, execution of the second constant-speed control is requested , and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than a vehicle speed of the following vehicle, perform acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own 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].) 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…”) 07-21-aia AIA 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shima of US 20060015240 A1 , filed 07/12/2005, hereinafter “Shima”, in view of Huelsebusch and further in view of Ozaki of JP 6611085 B2 , published 11/27/2019, hereinafter “Ozaki” . Regarding claim 7, Shima teaches: A vehicle driving assistance system comprising one or more processors configured to: execute traveling assistance control for automatically controlling acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically, (See at least Abstract: “A vehicle cruise control system is provided that comprises a vehicle speed detecting section, a cruise control section, and a cruising speed setting section. The vehicle speed detecting section is configured and arranged to detect a speed of a host vehicle. The cruise control section is configured to execute a first prescribed cruise control such that the host vehicle travels in a constant-speed state at a cruising speed setting when the host vehicle is traveling in a first prescribed speed region…”) the traveling assistance control including a first traveling assistance control and a second traveling assistance control, (See at least [0021]: “In the vehicle cruise control system in accordance with a first embodiment of the present invention, a total range of vehicle speeds in which a preceding vehicle following cruise control (i.e., the following cruise control) is executed is divided into two regions, i.e., a low speed region and a high speed region. The vehicle cruise control system is configured to selectively execute a following cruise control mode for the low speed region (hereinafter called "low speed following cruise control mode") and a following cruise control mode for the high speed region (hereinafter called "high speed following cruise control mode") so that the following cruise control is executed in all speed regions of the total range of vehicle speeds…”) the first traveling assistance control including at least a first constant-speed control, (See at least [0022]: “In the vehicle cruise control system of the present invention, the low speed following cruise control mode is used in the low speed region that ranges from the minimum vehicle speed (e.g., 10 km/h in the first embodiment) of the total range of vehicle speeds to an upper speed limit (e.g., 40 km/h in the first embodiment) for the low speed following cruise control mode. In the low speed following cruise control mode, the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the preceding vehicle following cruise control such that a vehicle in which the vehicle cruise control system is installed (hereinafter referred as "host vehicle") follows a preceding vehicle while maintaining a preset following distance (second prescribed following distance) when the preceding vehicle is detected in front of the host vehicle…”) the second traveling assistance control including at least a second constant-speed control and an acceleration control for increasing a vehicle speed of the own vehicle, (See at least [0023]: “…In the high speed following cruise control mode, the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the preceding vehicle following cruise control in which one of a constant speed cruise control and the following cruise control is executed depending on whether the preceding vehicle is detected…”) the first constant-speed control automatically controlling the acceleration of the own vehicle based on a first vehicle-speed range including a set vehicle speed such that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle becomes substantially equal to the set vehicle speed, (See at least [0022]: “In the vehicle cruise control system of the present invention, the low speed following cruise control mode is used in the low speed region that ranges from the minimum vehicle speed (e.g., 10 km/h in the first embodiment) of the total range of vehicle speeds to an upper speed limit (e.g., 40 km/h in the first embodiment) for the low speed following cruise control mode. In the low speed following cruise control mode, the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the preceding vehicle following cruise control such that a vehicle in which the vehicle cruise control system is installed (hereinafter referred as "host vehicle") follows a preceding vehicle while maintaining a preset following distance (second prescribed following distance) when the preceding vehicle is detected in front of the host vehicle…”) the second constant-speed control automatically controlling the acceleration of the own vehicle 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, (See at least [0028]: “…As mentioned above, the constant speed cruise control is configured to control the host vehicle to travel at the cruising speed setting for the high speed following cruise control mode…”) detect a following vehicle traveling in a same lane as the own vehicle; (See at least [0027]: “The following distance radar 1 is configured and arranged to sweep a laser beam in front of the host vehicle to detect a preceding vehicle and to detect a distance from the host vehicle to the preceding vehicle (i.e., the following distance)…”) execute the second constant-speed control based on a request for execution of the second traveling assistance control; and (See at least Fig. 2 & [0040]: “…In step S10, the cruise control controller 10 is configured to check if the current vehicle speed detected by the vehicle speed sensor 2 is in the high speed region (over 40 km/h in the first embodiment). If the vehicle speed is not yet in the high speed region, the cruise control controller 10 is configured to return to step S8 while continuing the following cruise control in the low speed following cruise control mode. On the other hand, if the vehicle speed is in the high speed region in step S10, the cruise control controller 10 is configured to proceed to step S11 and to automatically shift to the high speed following cruise control mode.”) switch from the second constant-speed control to the acceleration control in a case where execution of the second traveling assistance control is requested, the following vehicle is detected, and a predetermined condition that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle is satisfied. (See at least [0044]: “…In the second embodiment, when the vehicle is traveling in the prescribed vehicle speed region (hereinafter referred as "the ACC vehicle speed region"), the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the preceding vehicle following cruise control in which one of a constant speed cruise control and a following cruise control is selectively executed depending on whether a preceding vehicle is detected in front of the host vehicle. In other words, the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the constant speed cruise control such that the host vehicle travels in a constant-speed state at a cruising speed setting (hereinafter referred as "cruising speed setting") when a preceding vehicle is not detected and to execute the following cruise control such that the host vehicle follows the preceding vehicle while maintaining a following distance and not exceeding the cruising speed setting when the preceding vehicle is detected…”) Shima does not explicitly teach: the second vehicle-speed range being wider than the first vehicle-speed range; …the following vehicle is detected, and a predetermined condition that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle is satisfied. Huelsebusch teaches: the second vehicle-speed range being wider 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…” & [0064]: “Therefore, when driving at constant speed with a free rear area behind the vehicle, the speed can be varied in a greater range and therefore a preferably efficient manner of driving may be implemented.”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shima’s system with Huelsebusch’s second vehicle-speed range being wider than the first vehicle-speed range. Doing so would be obvious so “a preferably efficient manner of driving may be implemented” (See [0061] of Huelsebusch) . Shima and Huelsebusch in combination do not explicitly teach: …the following vehicle is detected, and a predetermined condition that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle is satisfied. Ozaki teaches: …the following vehicle is detected, and a predetermined condition that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle is satisfied. (See at least [0045]: “Furthermore, as shown in Figure 6(b), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the lower the acceleration is set to be compared to the predetermined reference value a4 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the higher the acceleration is set to be compared to the reference value a4 (see dashed line B). Furthermore, if other vehicles are far from vehicle 1 (relative speed < 0), and if other vehicles are not within a predetermined set distance, the acceleration is set to the reference value a4” & [0063]: “…In this embodiment, when a rear vehicle is located closer to vehicle 1, and/or when a rear vehicle is approaching vehicle 1 at a faster speed, the speed at which the rear vehicle approaches vehicle 1 can be reduced by slowing down vehicle 1 with a small deceleration.”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Shima and Huelsebusch’s system with Ozaki’s technique of adjusting vehicle acceleration when a rear vehicle is approaching at a faster speed. Doing so would be obvious since “This improves safety by preventing close proximity to other vehicles when there are speed changes in speed control” (See [0061] of Ozaki) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki in view of Huelsebusch and further in view of Ozaki . Regarding claim 8, Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Fujimaki and Huelsebusch in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein conditions for executing the acceleration control are different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. Ozaki teaches: wherein conditions for executing the acceleration control are different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. (See at least [0041]: “…Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L1 (including cases where no other vehicles are within the predetermined set distance), the deceleration is set to the standard value a1. In this embodiment, when a vehicle in front and a vehicle behind are approaching vehicle 1, the deceleration is set so that vehicle 1 quickly moves away from the vehicle in front and it is difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle behind” & [0051]: “In setting the deceleration speed, the ECU 10 determines whether or not the vehicle behind is within a predetermined set distance (S13). If a vehicle is present behind (S13; Yes), the ECU 10 sets a deceleration based on the distance between vehicle 1 and the vehicle behind (see vehicle 2b in Figure 3) (S14), and then terminates the process. The ECU 10 can, for example, obtain the deceleration corresponding to the distance between vehicles from the relationship between the distance between vehicles and the deceleration (see dashed line B in Figure 5(a)).”) 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 method with Ozaki’s conditions for executing the acceleration control being different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. Doing so would be obvious so “it is difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle behind” (See [0041] of Ozaki) . Regarding claim 9, 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 conditions for executing the acceleration control are different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. Ozaki teaches: wherein conditions for executing the acceleration control are different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. (See at least [0041]: “…Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L1 (including cases where no other vehicles are within the predetermined set distance), the deceleration is set to the standard value a1. In this embodiment, when a vehicle in front and a vehicle behind are approaching vehicle 1, the deceleration is set so that vehicle 1 quickly moves away from the vehicle in front and it is difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle behind” & [0051]: “In setting the deceleration speed, the ECU 10 determines whether or not the vehicle behind is within a predetermined set distance (S13). If a vehicle is present behind (S13; Yes), the ECU 10 sets a deceleration based on the distance between vehicle 1 and the vehicle behind (see vehicle 2b in Figure 3) (S14), and then terminates the process. The ECU 10 can, for example, obtain the deceleration corresponding to the distance between vehicles from the relationship between the distance between vehicles and the deceleration (see dashed line B in Figure 5(a)).”) 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 method with Ozaki’s conditions for executing the acceleration control being different depending on a relationship between a rear inter-vehicle distance and a predetermined rear short distance. Doing so would be obvious so “it is difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle behind” (See [0041] of Ozaki) . Regarding claim 10, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Ozaki additionally teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform a third acceleration/deceleration control when the rear inter-vehicle distance is longer than the predetermined rear short distance, and (See at least [0044]: “As shown in Figure 6(a), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the greater the deceleration is set to be greater than the predetermined reference value a3 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the less the deceleration is set to be greater than the reference value a3 (see dashed line B). Furthermore, if other vehicles are far from vehicle 1 (relative speed < 0), and if other vehicles are not within a predetermined set distance, the deceleration is set to the standard value a3…”) perform a fourth acceleration/deceleration control when the rear inter-vehicle distance is equal to or less than the predetermined rear short distance; and (See at least [0042]: “On the other hand, as shown in Figure 5(b), the smaller the distance between vehicles, the lower the acceleration is set to be compared to a predetermined reference value a2 (see solid line A), and the smaller the distance between vehicles, the higher the acceleration is set to be compared to a predetermined reference value a2 (see dashed line B). Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L2 (including cases where no other vehicles are within a predetermined set distance), the acceleration is set to the standard value a2…”) wherein the conditions for performing the acceleration control under the third acceleration/deceleration control are stricter than the conditions for performing the acceleration control under the fourth acceleration/deceleration control. (See at least [0042]: “…Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L2 (including cases where no other vehicles are within a predetermined set distance), the acceleration is set to the standard value a2…” & [0044]: “…Furthermore, if other vehicles are far from vehicle 1 (relative speed < 0), and if other vehicles are not within a predetermined set distance, the deceleration is set to the standard value a3…”) Regarding claim 11, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Ozaki additionally teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform a third acceleration/deceleration control when the rear inter-vehicle distance is longer than the predetermined rear short distance, and (See at least [0044]: “As shown in Figure 6(a), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the greater the deceleration is set to be greater than the predetermined reference value a3 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the less the deceleration is set to be greater than the reference value a3 (see dashed line B). Furthermore, if other vehicles are far from vehicle 1 (relative speed < 0), and if other vehicles are not within a predetermined set distance, the deceleration is set to the standard value a3…”) perform a fourth acceleration/deceleration control when the rear inter-vehicle distance is equal to or less than the predetermined rear short distance; and (See at least [0042]: “On the other hand, as shown in Figure 5(b), the smaller the distance between vehicles, the lower the acceleration is set to be compared to a predetermined reference value a2 (see solid line A), and the smaller the distance between vehicles, the higher the acceleration is set to be compared to a predetermined reference value a2 (see dashed line B). Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L2 (including cases where no other vehicles are within a predetermined set distance), the acceleration is set to the standard value a2…”) wherein the conditions for performing the acceleration control under the third acceleration/deceleration control are stricter than the conditions for performing the acceleration control under the fourth acceleration/deceleration control. (See at least [0042]: “…Furthermore, if the distance between the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind is greater than a predetermined distance L2 (including cases where no other vehicles are within a predetermined set distance), the acceleration is set to the standard value a2…” & [0044]: “…Furthermore, if other vehicles are far from vehicle 1 (relative speed < 0), and if other vehicles are not within a predetermined set distance, the deceleration is set to the standard value a3…”) Regarding claim 12, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Ozaki additionally teaches: wherein under the third acceleration/deceleration control, the acceleration control is performed based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being slower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle and a speed difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the following vehicle exceeding a predetermined rear approaching vehicle speed difference. (See at least [0043-0044]: “…relative speed is defined as positive (positive) when vehicle 1 is approaching another vehicle…As shown in Figure 6(a), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the greater the deceleration is set to be greater than the predetermined reference value a3 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the less the deceleration is set to be greater than the reference value a3 (see dashed line B)…Thus, in this embodiment, when the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind are approaching vehicle 1 at a high speed, the deceleration is set so that it becomes difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind.”) Regarding claim 13, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Ozaki additionally teaches: wherein under the third acceleration/deceleration control, the acceleration control is performed based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being slower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle and a speed difference between the own vehicle and the following vehicle exceeding a predetermined rear approaching vehicle speed difference. (See at least [0043- 0044]: “…relative speed is defined as positive (positive) when vehicle 1 is approaching another vehicle…As shown in Figure 6(a), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the greater the deceleration is set to be greater than the predetermined reference value a3 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the less the deceleration is set to be greater than the reference value a3 (see dashed line B)…Thus, in this embodiment, when the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind are approaching vehicle 1 at a high speed, the deceleration is set so that it becomes difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki in view of Huelsebusch and Ozaki and further in view of Shima . Regarding claim 14, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Ozaki additionally teaches: wherein under the third acceleration/deceleration control, the acceleration control is performed based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being slower than the vehicle speed of the following vehicle, a speed difference between the own vehicle and the following vehicle exceeding a predetermined rear approaching vehicle speed difference, and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second vehicle-speed range . (See at least [0043-0044]: “…relative speed is defined as positive (positive) when vehicle 1 is approaching another vehicle…As shown in Figure 6(a), the greater the relative speed of the vehicle in front, the greater the deceleration is set to be greater than the predetermined reference value a3 (see solid line A), and the greater the relative speed of the vehicle behind, the less the deceleration is set to be greater than the reference value a3 (see dashed line B)…Thus, in this embodiment, when the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind are approaching vehicle 1 at a high speed, the deceleration is set so that it becomes difficult for vehicle 1 to approach the vehicle in front and the vehicle behind.”) However, Ozaki does not explicitly teach, performing the acceleration control under the third acceleration/deceleration control based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second vehicle speed range. Shima teaches a low speed following cruise control mode that is used in a low speed region within a total range of vehicle speeds “that ranges from a minimum vehicle speed at which the following cruise control is executed to a maximum vehicle speed at which the following cruise control is executed” (See at least [0021-0022]) . Shima additionally teaches that cruise control controller shifts “to the preceding vehicle following cruise control in the low speed following cruise control mode unconditionally when the speed of the host vehicle falls to 40 km/h or less while the preceding vehicle following cruise control is executed in the high speed following cruise control mode” (See at least [0032]) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki’s method with Shima’s technique of performing acceleration control under the third acceleration/deceleration control based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second speed range. Doing so would be obvious so “operability with respect to shifting between vehicle speed regions is improved” (See [0009] of Shima) . Regarding claim 15, Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki in combination do not explicitly teach: wherein under the fourth acceleration/deceleration control, the acceleration control is performed based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second vehicle-speed range. Shima teaches: wherein under the fourth acceleration/deceleration control, the acceleration control is performed based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second vehicle-speed range. (See at least [0023]: “On the other hand, the high speed following cruise control mode is also called an adaptive cruise control (ACC) mode, and is used in a high speed region that ranges from a lower speed limit (e.g., 40 km/h in the first embodiment) for the high speed following cruise control mode to the maximum vehicle speed (e.g., 110 km/h in the first embodiment) of the total range of vehicle speeds. In the high speed following cruise control mode, the vehicle cruise control system is configured to execute the preceding vehicle following cruise control in which one of a constant speed cruise control and the following cruise control is executed depending on whether the preceding vehicle is detected…”) One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Fujimaki, Huelsebusch, and Ozaki’s method with Shima’s technique of performing acceleration control under the fourth acceleration/deceleration control based on the vehicle speed of the own vehicle being lower than an upper limit value of the second speed range. Doing so would be obvious so “operability with respect to shifting between vehicle speed regions is improved” (See [0009] of Shima) . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm 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 at 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 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 22 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 23 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 24 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 25 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 26 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 27 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 18/803,008 Page 28 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights