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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12091007 (hereinafter Patent ‘007). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 and 6 are encompassed by claim 1 of Patent ‘007, as illustrated in the table below, where differences in the claim sets are bolded.
A difference is that claim 1 of the instant application recites “based on a comparison between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle”, and claim 1 of Patent ‘007 recites “based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle”. However, there is no patentable distinction between a “comparison” of vehicle speeds and a “determination” that one speed is faster than another since they are analogous (i.e., a determination that one speed is faster than another is also a comparison).
Another difference is that claims 4 and 6 of the instant application recite “the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle”, and claim 1 of Patent ‘007 recites “the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is slower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle”. However, there is no patentable distinction between a vehicle speed being “lower” as opposed to “slower”, since the terms are synonymous (i.e., both directed to a speed that is less than a particular speed).
Lastly, claim 6 of the instant application recites “a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference”, and claim 1 of Patent ‘007 recites “a predetermined front separating vehicle speed difference”. However, there is no patentable distinction between a “forward approaching” and a “front separating” speed difference, since the terms are synonymous (i.e., both directed to the region ahead of a vehicle).
US PATENT NO. 12091007
INSTANT APPLICATION 18/803,009
Claim 1:
A vehicle driving assistance system comprising: a controller that performs traveling assistance control for automatically controlling an acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically; and
detection circuitry configured to detect a forward vehicle that travels on the same lane as the own vehicle within a predetermined forward vehicle determination distance ahead of the own vehicle,
wherein: the traveling assistance control includes (i) 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
(ii) 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;
each of the first vehicle-speed range and the second vehicle-speed range are both ranges in which vehicle speed variations from the set vehicle speed are allowed…
…the second vehicle-speed range is set to a range that is wider than the first vehicle-speed range…
…in a case where…the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the controller is configured to perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle,
Claim 1:
A vehicle driving assistance system comprising: a controller that performs traveling assistance control for automatically controlling an acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically; and
detection circuitry configured to detect a forward vehicle that travels on a same lane as the own vehicle within a predetermined forward vehicle determination distance ahead of the own vehicle,
wherein: the traveling assistance control includes (i) 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
(ii) 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;
each of the first vehicle-speed range and the second vehicle-speed range are both ranges in which vehicle speed variations from the set vehicle speed are allowed;
the second vehicle-speed range is set to a range that is wider than the first vehicle-speed range; and
the controller is configured to: in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle or acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle, based on a comparison between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle.
Claim 1:
…in a case where…the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the controller is configured to perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle…
Claim 2:
The vehicle driving assistance system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the deceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle.
Claim 1:
…in a case where…the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the controller is configured to perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference; and…
Claim 3:
The vehicle driving assistance system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the deceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference.
Claim 1:
…in the case where…the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the controller is configured to perform acceleration control…based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is slower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle…
Claim 4:
The vehicle driving assistance system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the acceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle.
Claim 1:
…in the case where…the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the controller is configured to perform acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle based on a determination that the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is slower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined front separating vehicle speed difference…
Claim 6:
The vehicle driving assistance system according to claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to perform the acceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference.
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 02/13/2025 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the detection circuitry in claims 1-6 (See at least [0055] for corresponding structure):
“…configured to detect a forward vehicle…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plianos of US 20190100209 A1, filed 09/28/2018, hereinafter “Plianos”, in view of Sonoda of US 20100070151 A1, filed 09/16/2009, hereinafter “Sonoda”.
Regarding claim 1, Plianos teaches:
A vehicle driving assistance system comprising: a controller that performs traveling assistance control for automatically controlling an acceleration of an own vehicle to cause the own vehicle to travel automatically; and (See at least Abstract: “Method and apparatus for controlling a prime mover of a first vehicle following a first path. A likely speed behaviour of a second vehicle ahead of the first vehicle is estimated based on a predicted path of the second vehicle. At least one coasting profile for the first vehicle is estimated for at least part of the first path and/or the predicted path. At least one of the coasting profiles is determined that meets at least one predetermined coasting requirement. The prime mover may be controlled to place the vehicle into a coasting mode based on the at least one determined coasting profile…”)
detection circuitry configured to detect a forward vehicle that travels on a same lane as the own vehicle (See at least Fig. 3 & [0096]: “…This second car is detected and located relative to the first car 100 by, for example, any one of; received V2V data V2I data or proximity sensing means 109” & [0089]: “…The car may include a camera, radar or other proximity sensing means 109 that senses objects and terrain in the proximity of the first car 100 and the controller may use this information to judge the location of the first car 100 and the distance of any objects from the first car 100…”)
wherein: the traveling assistance control includes (i) 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 (ii) 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; (See at least [0170]: “…the speed range when in a coasting mode may be wider than when in a non-coasting mode. For example, when in ordinary cruise control or driver assist mode, speed may be controlled to within +1 km/h and −2 km/h (or +1 mph and −2 mph, for example). For the purpose of generating profiles and implementing a selected coasting profile, a different, wider speed range may be employed. For example, in the coasting mode, the upper speed limit may be +3 km/h (or +2 mph, for example) and the lower speed limit may be −4 km/h (or 3 mph, for example), relative to a nominal speed” & [0183]: “…the cruise control module 262 operates to maintain the speed of the vehicle within +1 km/h and −2 km/h of a set speed input by the user when not coasting…”)
each of the first vehicle-speed range and the second vehicle-speed range are both ranges in which vehicle speed variations from the set vehicle speed are allowed; (See at least [0174]: “The vehicle speed control system 261 comprises cruise control module 262 that accepts as inputs a speed setpoint from the driver, the current vehicle speed and a coasting request…” & [0112]: “…the speed range when in a non-coasting mode may comprise a hard limit above and below a nominal cruise control speed. The speed range when in a coasting mode may comprise a different hard limit above and below a nominal coasting profile. The hard limit in the coasting mode may comprise the hard limit from the non-coasting mode plus a soft limit added to increase the speed range during coasting,”)
the second vehicle-speed range is set to a range that is wider than the first vehicle-speed range; and (See at least [0185]: “Upon receipt of the instruction to enter the coasting mode, the cruise control module 262 adopts a wider speed range, such as +2 km/h and −4 km/h, thereby allowing greater increases and decreases in speed before it intervenes…”)
Plianos does not explicitly teach:
…within a predetermined forward vehicle determination distance ahead of the own vehicle…
the controller is configured to: in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle or acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle, based on a comparison between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle.
Sonoda teaches:
…within a predetermined forward vehicle determination distance ahead of the own vehicle… (See at least [0058]: “…At this step S3, based on a distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle that has been detected by forward vehicle detecting camera 107, judgment is carried out as to whether the forward-vehicle is placed within a speed control executing range (viz., SCER) or not” & [0107]: “…the actual inter-vehicular distance "Dca" is within the speed control executing range (viz., between the maximum and minimum values "Dmax" and "Dmin")…”)
the controller is configured to: in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, perform deceleration control for reducing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle or acceleration control for increasing the vehicle speed of the own vehicle, based on a comparison between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle. (See at least [0082]: “While, when the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a minus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is lower than the speed "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual approaching of the so own-vehicle to the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, deceleration of the own-vehicle is made while reducing the value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus the distance correction term "Dco" takes a minus value…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Plianos’s system with Sonoda’s technique of detecting a forward vehicle within a predetermined forward vehicle determination distance and performing deceleration control based on a comparison between the own vehicle speed and the forward vehicle speed in a case where the execution of the second constant speed control is requested. Doing so would be obvious so “the own-vehicle starts to decelerate in accordance with a speed difference between the two vehicles” and so “there is no possibility of a collision of the own-vehicle against the forward-vehicle” (See [0139] & [0141] of Sonoda).
Regarding claim 2, Plianos and Sonoda in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonoda additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform the deceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle. (See at least [0082]: “While, when the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a minus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is lower than the speed "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual approaching of the so own-vehicle to the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, deceleration of the own-vehicle is made while reducing the value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus the distance correction term "Dco" takes a minus value…”)
Regarding claim 4, Plianos and Sonoda in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonoda additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform the acceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested and the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle. (See at least [0081]: “When the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a plus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is higher than that "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual receding of the own-vehicle from the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, acceleration of the own-vehicle is made while increasing a value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus, the distance correction term "Dco" takes a plus value…”)
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plianos in view of Sonoda and further in view of Kiryu of US 20190362633 A1, filed 05/20/2019, hereinafter “Kiryu”.
Regarding claim 3, Plianos and Sonoda in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonoda additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform the deceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, (See at least [0082]: “While, when the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a minus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is lower than the speed "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual approaching of the so own-vehicle to the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, deceleration of the own-vehicle is made while reducing the value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus the distance correction term "Dco" takes a minus value…”)
Plianos and Sonoda in combination do not explicitly teach:
…and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference.
Kiryu teaches:
…and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference. (See at least [0011]: “…in a case in which a vehicle speed of a preceding vehicle traveling in front of a traveling lane on which the subject vehicle recognized by the recognition unit travels is less than a vehicle speed of the subject vehicle and a speed difference between a vehicle speed of the preceding vehicle and the vehicle speed or the set vehicle speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the driving control unit executes driving control for overtaking the preceding vehicle by a lane change from the traveling lane to an overtaking lane…” & [0047]: “…the driving control unit controls one or both of the steering and the acceleration or deceleration of the subject vehicle M on the basis of the surrounding situation recognized by the recognition unit 130, a set vehicle speed of the subject vehicle M set by the occupant, and the like…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Plianos and Sonoda’s system with Kiryu’s technique of performing deceleration control when the difference between the own vehicle speed and the forward vehicle speed is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference. Doing so would be obvious so that “stable traveling is possible, and it is possible to reduce the anxiety of the occupant due to the execution of the overtaking control after the road environment changes” (See [0081] of Kiryu).
Regarding claim 6, Plianos and Sonoda in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonoda additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform the acceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, (See at least [0081]: “When the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a plus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is higher than that "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual receding of the own-vehicle from the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, acceleration of the own-vehicle is made while increasing a value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus, the distance correction term "Dco" takes a plus value…”)
Plianos and Sonoda in combination do not explicitly teach:
…and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference.
Kiryu teaches:
…and a difference between the vehicle speed of the own vehicle and the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference. (See at least [0011]: “…in a case in which a vehicle speed of a preceding vehicle traveling in front of a traveling lane on which the subject vehicle recognized by the recognition unit travels is less than a vehicle speed of the subject vehicle and a speed difference between a vehicle speed of the preceding vehicle and the vehicle speed or the set vehicle speed of the subject vehicle is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the driving control unit executes driving control for overtaking the preceding vehicle by a lane change from the traveling lane to an overtaking lane…” & [0047]: “…the driving control unit controls one or both of the steering and the acceleration or deceleration of the subject vehicle M on the basis of the surrounding situation recognized by the recognition unit 130, a set vehicle speed of the subject vehicle M set by the occupant, and the like…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Plianos and Sonoda’s system with Kiryu’s technique of performing acceleration control when the difference between the own vehicle speed and the forward vehicle speed is larger than a predetermined forward approaching vehicle speed difference. Doing so would be obvious so that “stable traveling is possible, and it is possible to reduce the anxiety of the occupant due to the execution of the overtaking control after the road environment changes” (See [0081] of Kiryu).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plianos in view of Sonoda and further in view of Okuda of US 20200180620 A1, filed 06/28/2018, hereinafter “Okuda”.
Regarding claim 5, Plianos and Sonoda in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sonoda additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to perform the acceleration control in a case where the execution of the second constant-speed control is requested, the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is faster than the vehicle speed of the forward vehicle, and (See at least [0082]: “While, when the relative speed "Vr" of the own-vehicle (to the forward-vehicle) shows a minus value, it means that the speed "Vf" of the forward-vehicle is lower than the speed "Vi" of the own-vehicle, which brings about gradual approaching of the so own-vehicle to the forward-vehicle. Accordingly, in this case, deceleration of the own-vehicle is made while reducing the value of the distance "Dca" to the forward-vehicle, and thus the distance correction term "Dco" takes a minus value…”)
Plianos and Sonoda in combination do not explicitly teach:
the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than a lower limit of the second vehicle-speed range.
Okuda teaches:
the vehicle speed of the own vehicle is lower than a lower limit of the second vehicle-speed range. (See at least [0097]: “…when the first recommended speed is equal to or less than the second recommended speed, the acceleration and deceleration control device 123 performs speed control such that the speed of the vehicle 100 is increased to a speed exceeding the first recommended speed (e.g., the second recommended speed as the upper limit) within the section corresponding to the first recommended speed (step S006).”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Plianos and Sonoda’s system with Okuda’s technique of performing acceleration control when the own vehicle speed is lower than a lower limit of the second vehicle speed range. Doing so would be obvious “to improve followability to the preceding vehicle” (See [0155] of Okuda).
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