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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggoune, et al., US 2023/0069732 A1, in view of Hayashi, et al., US 2023/0074566 A1.
As per Claim 1, Aggoune teaches a vehicle control device for controlling a vehicle (¶¶ 39-40; vehicle propulsion controller 102 of Figure 2), the control device comprising circuitry configured to:
detect a speed limit of a road on which the vehicle travels based on peripheral information on the vehicle obtained by an external sensor that the vehicle has (¶¶ 49-50; based on “posted speed limit information”); and
present a user of the vehicle, as a suggested speed, either a first speed based on the detected speed limit or a second speed set by the user (¶ 59; “to present the operator of the vehicle 10 with a recommended vehicle speed” as in Figure 1).
Aggoune does not expressly teach: performing travel control of controlling a travel speed of the vehicle in response to the user's approval of the suggested speed, in which the suggested speed is set as a target speed. Hayashi teaches performing travel control of controlling a travel speed of the vehicle in response to the user's approval of the suggested speed, in which the suggested speed is set as a target speed (¶ 69; after “accept[ing] a driver’s input operation corresponding to the presented contents”). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the speed detection system of Aggoune with the driving assist functions of Hayashi, in order to make a change from autonomous to manual operation of a vehicle smoother and less abrupt.
As per Claim 2, Aggoune teaches that the circuitry is configured to present the user the first speed as the suggested speed when the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle travels is different from a speed limit of a road on which a previous travel control is suspended or ended (¶¶ 73, 79; “the recommendation may be in response to a change in speed limit” or determining “when to coast or the speed limit change”).
As per Claim 3, Aggoune teaches that the second speed is a target speed of a previous travel control (¶ 73; per a “recommendation” of a “target vehicle speed”), and the circuitry is configured to present the user the second speed as the suggested speed when the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle travels is the same as a speed limit of a road on which the previous travel control is suspended or ended (¶ 79; “after a speed reduction event (e.g., a stop sign occurring 100 feet beyond a speed limit reduction to 25 miles per hour)”).
As per Claim 4, Aggoune teaches that the second speed is a target speed of the previous travel control (¶ 85; as per “previous coasting recommendations”), and that the circuitry is configured to present the user the second speed as the suggested speed when the second speed deviates by a predetermined value or more from a speed limit of a road on which the previous travel control is suspended or ended (¶ 85; “based on a difference between a predicted target speed and actual speed at the target location”).
As per Claim 5, Aggoune teaches that the circuitry is configured to present the user the second speed as the suggested speed when the second speed is higher by the predetermined value or more than the speed limit of the road on which the previous travel control is suspended or ended (¶ 99; “the system determines a 25 mph speed limit as next event with a target speed off 25 mph and issues the coast indication at the blue arrow”).
As per Claim 6, Aggoune teaches that the predetermined value is greater than an offset speed set by the user (¶ 48; as VPC 102 of Figure 2 may decide to “increase or decrease the torque demand, thereby increasing or decreasing the desired vehicle speed or current vehicle speed”).
As per Claim 7, Aggoune teaches that the first speed is a sum of the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle travels and the offset speed (¶ 56; as “the PAC 124 monitors the operator's vehicle speed relative to posted speed limits”), and the circuitry is configured to present the user the second speed as the suggested speed when the second speed is higher by the predetermined value or more than the speed limit of the road on which the previous travel control is suspended or ended and is higher than the first speed, and the circuitry is configured to present the user the first speed as the suggested speed when the second speed is higher by the predetermined value or more than the speed limit of the road on which the previous travel control is suspended or ended and is lower than the first speed (¶¶ 72-73; as the recommendation may include a symbol or textual information that indicates to the operator of the vehicle 10 to increase or decrease vehicle speed”).
As per Claim 8, Aggoune teaches that the circuitry is configured to change a presentation time of the suggested speed depending on a difference between the suggested speed and a travel speed of the vehicle when the suggested speed is presented to the user (¶ 73; “a coast recommendation that may be displayed for a calibratable amount of time and may then be withdrawn in response to the operator of the vehicle 10 ignoring the recommendation”).
As per Claim 9, Aggoune does not expressly teach that the circuitry is configured to shorten the presentation time if the difference between the suggested speed and the travel speed of the vehicle when the suggested speed is presented to the user is large, compared to a case where the difference is small. Hayashi teach that the circuitry is configured to shorten the presentation time if the difference between the suggested speed and the travel speed of the vehicle when the suggested speed is presented to the user is large (¶¶ 117-119; “as change notification time” is based on “driving at high speed”), compared to a case where the difference is small (¶¶ 125-126; “than in Case C1 in which the subject vehicle is normally driving”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 10, Aggoune does not expressly teach that the circuitry is configured to shorten the presentation time if the travel speed of the vehicle when the suggested speed is presented to the user is higher than the suggested speed, compared to a case where the travel speed of the vehicle is lower than the suggested speed. Hayashi teach that the circuitry is configured to shorten the presentation time if the travel speed of the vehicle when the suggested speed is presented to the user is higher than the suggested speed, compared to a case where the travel speed of the vehicle is lower than the suggested speed (¶¶ 125-126; as “change request timing is advanced more in Case C2 in which the subject vehicle is driving at high speed than in Case C1 in which the subject vehicle is normally driving” as shown in Figures 3 and 4). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
As per Claim 11, Aggoune teaches that if a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the vehicle is present and a speed of the preceding vehicle is higher than the first speed and the second speed, the circuitry is configured to present the user a third speed based on the speed of the preceding vehicle as a suggested speed (¶¶ 69-70; “VPC 102 may then adjust the current vehicle speed of the vehicle 10 to follow the virtual lead car” in order “to follow a lead vehicle based on information from the vehicle sensors 108 (e.g., as described)” as shown in Figure 2).
As per Claim 12, Aggoune teaches a control method performed by a computer for controlling a vehicle (¶ 40), the control method comprising:
detecting a speed limit of a road on which the vehicle travels based on peripheral information on the vehicle obtained by an external sensor included in the vehicle (¶¶ 49-50; based on “posted speed limit information”); and
presenting a user of the vehicle, as a suggested speed, either a first speed based on the detected speed limit or a second speed set by the user (¶ 59; “to present the operator of the vehicle 10 with a recommended vehicle speed” as in Figure 1).
Aggoune does not expressly teach performing travel control of controlling a travel speed of the vehicle with the presented suggested speed as a target speed in response to the user's approval of the suggested speed. Hayashi teaches performing travel control of controlling a travel speed of the vehicle with the presented suggested speed as a target speed in response to the user's approval of the suggested speed (¶ 69; after “accept[ing] a driver’s input operation corresponding to the presented contents”). See Claim 1 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is (313)446-4908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
ATUL TRIVEDI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/ATUL TRIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661