DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on September 19, 2024 amending claims 1, 3-5 and 8-13 of the pending claims, which were claims 1-13. Accordingly, the pending claims and those subject to examination are claims 1-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the first state is a state where an absolute value of a first-order derivative and/or an absolute value of a second-order derivative of the travel speed generated to the straddle-type vehicle (100) has a reduction tendency, and
the second state is a state where the absolute value of the first-order derivative and/or the absolute value of the second-order derivative of the travel speed generated to the straddle-type vehicle (100) has an increase tendency.
The terms “increase tendency” and “reduction tendency” are used in at least paragraph 0057.
Claim 1 already at least partly defined the states as “a second state differing from the first state according to whether a group travel mode is valid”. Present claim 2 added that a first state has a “separating tendency” and a second state has an “approaching tendency,” although claim 6 does not depend on claim 2 but on claim 1.
Present claim 6 recites in part “an absolute value of a first-order derivative”.
A first-order derivative of the travel speed is reasonably acceleration. To take an absolute value of acceleration means that if the host vehicle could be braking or accelerating and the absolute value of that could be the same. Since both bullets in the claim feature the identical condition, it cannot be the basis for differentiating between two tendencies.
In other words, claim 6 could and will be interpreted as follows, with the examiner’s deletions in double strike through:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the first state is a state where
the second state is a state where
Yet even in that interpretation, the claim does not state what “a reduction tendency” and “an increase tendency” are. Based on claim 7 a reduction tendency is when the rear wheel braking is reduced. Paragraph 0059 teaches that in group travel mode, which is second operation mode, “the priority of the rear wheel is increased at the start of braking, and thereafter the priority of the rear wheel is reduced.” This is defined as an “increase tendency (corresponding to the ‘second state’ in the invention).”
In some ways it seems the applicant wants to have it both ways, the rear brakes have priority (at least at first) and then they don’t (after the “start of braking”). In other ways, the claim makes sense. When traveling in a tightly packed group, the front brakes, which are generally known to brake the vehicle faster, should perform most of the braking (receive more of the braking pressure) since the front brake will stop the vehicle faster than if the rear wheels performed most of the braking.
For examination purposes, the “increase tendency” will be interpreted to mean: the priority of the rear wheel is increased at the start of braking, and thereafter the priority of the rear wheel is reduced in the distribution of braking force between the front and rear wheels. Furthermore, the second state will be interpreted as the group travel state.
The “reduction tendency” will be interpreted to mean the opposite of the increase tendency, that is the reduction tendency will be interpreted as: the priority of the rear wheel is decreased at the start of braking, and thereafter the priority of the rear wheel is increased in the distribution of braking force between the front and rear wheels. This occurs in the first state which is a state that is not a group travel state.
Claim 7 lacks written description. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the first state is a state where a priority of a rear wheel in distribution of a braking force to front and rear wheels in the straddle-type vehicle (100) has a reduction tendency, and
the second state is a state where the priority of the rear wheel in the distribution of the braking force to the front and rear wheels in the straddle-type vehicle (100) has an increase tendency.
The terms “reduction tendency” and “increase tendency” are not defined in the claim. Note that claim 7 depends directly on claim 1, not on claim 6. Paragraph 0059 teaches that in group travel mode, which is second operation mode, “the priority of the rear wheel is increased at the start of braking, and thereafter the priority of the rear wheel is reduced.” This is defined as an “increase tendency (corresponding to the ‘second state’ in the invention).”
For examination purposes, these terms will be interpreted as they are for claim 6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is indefinite. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the first state is a state where an absolute value of a first-order derivative and/or an absolute value of a second-order derivative of the travel speed generated to the straddle-type vehicle (100) has a reduction tendency, and
the second state is a state where the absolute value of the first-order derivative and/or the absolute value of the second-order derivative of the travel speed generated to the straddle-type vehicle (100) has an increase tendency.
Claim 1 never definitely says which state is the group travel state. Claim 1 merely recites “wherein in the positional relationship adjustment operation, switch between a first operation mode in which the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) is brought into a first state and a second operation mode in which the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) is brought into a second state differing from the first state according to whether a group travel mode is valid”. For that reason, claim 6 becomes indefinite when talking about which state has a reduction tendency and which has a increase tendency. What prevents the applicant from arguing later that the first state is the one with the reduction tendency or that the second state is the one with the reduction tendency? As the claims now stand, it could be either one.
The examiner also notes that clarifying what state and mode the group travel mode is in claims 6 and 7 may require the applicant to clearly define these states and groups in claim 1. It must be clear whether or not ACC can be on while not in a group travel mode and whether or not ACC can be on while in a group travel mode. The examiner views the disclosure as teaching that the host vehicle can have ACC on while not in a group travel mode (which occurs when following one other vehicle) and can also have ACC on while being in a group travel mode. Moreover, ACC must be on when in a group travel mode. This clarification is necessary because claims 6 and 7 appear to relate to how braking is distributed as dependent on whether group travel mode is on and whether ACC is on. But if the difference between modes and states is that in a first mode and first state the ACC is, in fact, off, that changes the interpretation of the claim and thus the appliable art. In other words, following claim 1, there is always a target vehicle 200 involved. So the first mode is ACC mode but without group travel. The second mode is ACC with group travel. In that mode, the host vehicle is group into a second state, which is that the host vehicle has a shorter intervehicle distance to the target vehicle, as compared to the intervehicle distance in the first mode. That longer intervehicle distance in the first mode is what is referred to as the first state. States are distances that are subservient to the modes. The host vehicle cannot be in a first mode and a second state, nor vice versa.
Based on paragraph 0059 the second mode will be interpreted as the group travel mode and therefore it is in that mode that there is “an increase tendency,” according to claim 6. The first mode will be interpreted as when ACC is on but the host vehicle is not in a group travel mode.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6, and will be similarly interpreted for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfau (US2023/0242100).
Regarding claim 1, Pfau discloses:
A controller (20) for behavior of a straddle-type vehicle (100), the controller (20) configured to (see Fig. 2 for a controller 20. See Fig. 1 for the controller being for a motorcycle 100. The examiner notes that MPEP §608.01(n) allows part numbers for reference as long as they are in parentheses.) :
acquire positional relationship information between the traveling straddle-type vehicle (100) and a target (200) (see Pfau, Fig. 4, item 110 for a target. It is acquired using detectors 11 as discussed in paragraphs 0022-0023); and
execute a positional relationship adjustment operation to automatically change a travel speed of the straddle-type vehicle (100) on the basis of the positional relationship information acquired by the acquisition section (21) and to thereby adjust a positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) (see paragraph 0034 for the host motorcycle having an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system wherein when a preceding vehicle is present, the ACC adjust the intervehicle following distance between the host vehicle and preceding vehicle. The relative distance, speed, and acceleration of the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is determined using the surrounding environment detector 11a of the host vehicle.),
wherein in the positional relationship adjustment operation, see paragraph 0036 for an analysis section 22 determining if the host vehicle is in a state of “group travel” as in Fig. 4, lane L1. If so, the system will widen the area of sensor detection to obtain detection of vehicles to the side of the host vehicle, such as vehicle 301a and not just vehicle 110. See the last sentence of paragraph 0036 which teaches that when the host motorcycle is in a group travel state with ACC the system may include a vehicle in the same lane but a different travel row (i.e., vehicles 301 in Fig. 4) and reduce the inter-vehicle following distance. When the host vehicle has ACC on but there is no preceding vehicle, according to paragraph 0034, then the host vehicle will simply travel at its set speed. When there is a preceding vehicle, the ACC will establish and maintain an inter-vehicle following distance. But in paragraph 0036, the host vehicle’s ACC system, when it recognizes the host vehicle is in a group travel state, will shorten the inter-vehicle distance.),
the group travel mode being a mode in which the straddle-type vehicle (100) travels with at least one other straddle-type vehicle (300) in a group (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0036. See Fig. 6 for traveling in a group. The host vehicle is vehicle 100.).
Regarding claim 2, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the first state is a state where the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) has a separating tendency (in the present claims, claim 1 already at least partly defined the states as “a second state differing from the first state according to whether a group travel mode is valid”. The present claim now adds that a first state has a separating tendency and a second state has an approaching tendency. With that in mind, see Pfau paragraph 0034 for a regular ACC mode. Then see paragraph 0036 for a group state ACC. See especially the last sentence of paragraph 0036 which teaches that when the host motorcycle is in a group travel state with ACC may reduce the inter-vehicle following distance. If the travel state switches from regular ACC (i.e., following a single proceeding vehicle directly in front of the host vehicle, or no proceeding vehicle) to group travel ACC, there will be an approaching tendency. If the system switches from group travel ACC to regular ACC there will be a separating tendency. Furthermore, in regular ACC, it is likely, even inherent, that the host vehicle separates in distance from the proceeding vehicle, then speeds up to close re-achieve the desired following distance, and does so repeatedly.), and
the second state is a state where the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) has an approaching tendency (see paragraph 0036 especially the last sentence).
Regarding claim 11, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1,
the target (200B) is the other straddle-type vehicle (300) that belongs to a different vehicle line (L2) from the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group (see Pfau Fig. 4 and paragraph 0036 for the host vehicle being in “a different travel row” from another motorcycle in the group. See Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for the host vehicle detecting a “left target” and a “right target”. See paragraph 0031 for the system determining that the distance to 301a and 301b are within a range for a period of time and that therefore the host vehicle is in a state of group travel.).
Regarding claim 13, Pfau discloses:
A control method for behavior of a straddle-type vehicle (100), the control method comprising (see Fig. 6 for a method. See Fig. 2 for a controller 20. See Fig. 1 for the controller being for a motorcycle 100. The examiner notes that MPEP §608.01(n) allows part numbers for reference as long as they are in parentheses.):
an acquisition step (S101) in which see Pfau, Fig. 4, item 110 for a target. It is acquired using detectors 11 as discussed in paragraphs 0022-0023); and
an execution step (S 102) in which see paragraph 0034 for the host motorcycle having an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system wherein when a preceding vehicle is present, the ACC adjust the intervehicle following distance between the host vehicle and preceding vehicle. The relative distance, speed, and acceleration of the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is determined using the surrounding environment detector 11a of the host vehicle.),
wherein in the execution step (S 102), in the positional relationship adjustment operation, thecontroller switches between a first operation mode in which the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) is brought into a first state and a second operation mode in which the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) is brought into a second state differing from the first state according to whether a group travel mode is valid (see paragraph 0036 for an analysis section 22 determining if the host vehicle is in a state of “group travel” as in Fig. 4, lane L1. If so, the system will widen the area of sensor detection to obtain detection of vehicles to the side of the host vehicle, such as vehicle 301a and not just vehicle 110. See the last sentence of paragraph 0036 which teaches that when the host motorcycle is in a group travel state with ACC the system may include a vehicle in the same lane but a different travel row (i.e., vehicles 301 in Fig. 4) and reduce the inter-vehicle following distance. When the host vehicle has ACC on but there is no preceding vehicle, according to paragraph 0034, then the host vehicle will simply travel at its set speed. When there is a preceding vehicle, the ACC will establish and maintain an inter-vehicle following distance. But in paragraph 0036, the host vehicle’s ACC system, when it recognizes the host vehicle is in a group travel state, will shorten the inter-vehicle distance.),
the group travel mode being a mode in which the straddle-type vehicle (100) travels with at least one other straddle-type vehicle (300) in a group (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0036. See Fig. 6 for traveling in a group. The host vehicle is vehicle 100.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Isuzu (JP7238719B2).
Regarding claim 3, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 2.
Yet Pfau does not further disclose:
The controller (20) according to claim 2, wherein
according to setting input information by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100), thecontroller selects one state amount (P) from a state amount set (S1, S2) in which plural state amounts (P), each of which defines the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200), are combined, and in the positional relationship adjustment operation, adjusts the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) on the basis of the selected one state amount (P).
However, Isuzu teaches:
according to setting input information by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100), thecontroller selects one state amount (P) from a state amount set (S1, S2) in which plural state amounts (P), each of which defines the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200), are combined, and in the positional relationship adjustment operation, adjusts the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) on the basis of the selected one state amount (P) (in the present disclosure, the state amount (P) is related to Figs. 4 and 7. For a “state amount set S1” see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0034. For “a state amount set S2” see Fig. 7 and paragraph 0046. The state amount P can be an intervehicle following distance.
The concept, in one broad reasonable interpretation, is that the rider of the host vehicle can select (by providing “input information” as recited in the present claim) various levels (Lv 1, etc) from a “set” of levels which each have a corresponding inter-vehicle distances P. In present claim 3 the rider “selects one state amount (P) from a state amount set”. Commonly in ACC systems a driver or rider can “set” an inter-vehicle following distance, but that is not the definition of the word “set” in this context. Here “set” means, basically, a table, a set of numbers. This set is predetermined and defines various inter-vehicle distances by level. The rider can select a level / distance from the set.
With that in mind, see Isuzu page 4 of the attached English translation in which a driver can “select one of a plurality of preset inter-vehicle ranges via the inter-vehicle distance setting button of the ACC”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Pfau, to add the additional features of: according to setting input information by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100), thecontroller selects one state amount (P) from a state amount set (S1, S2) in which plural state amounts (P), each of which defines the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200), are combined, and in the positional relationship adjustment operation, adjusts the positional relationship between the straddle-type vehicle (100) and the target (200) on the basis of the selected one state amount (P), as taught by Isuzu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve ACC experience when driving in various kinds of traffic, as recognized by Isuzu (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is especially obvious because Pfau teaches that the rider can input an adjustment to the inter-vehicle following distance. see Pfau paragraph 0034 for “a target speed set by the rider” and that “the rider can adjust the inter-vehicular distance from the preceding vehicle.”
Regarding claim 5, Pfau and Isuzu teach the controller (20) according to claim 3.
Yet Pfau does not further disclose:
The controller (20) according to claim 3, wherein
the controller uses the same state amount set (S1) in the first operation mode and the second operation mode.
However, Isuzu teaches:
the controller uses the same state amount set (S1) in the first operation mode and the second operation mode (see Isuzu page 4 of the attached English translation in which a driver can “select one of a plurality of preset inter-vehicle ranges via the inter-vehicle distance setting button of the ACC”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Pfau and Isuzu, to add the additional features of: the controller uses the same state amount set (S1) in the first operation mode and the second operation mode, as taught by Isuzu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve ACC experience when driving in various kinds of traffic, as recognized by Isuzu (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is especially obvious because Pfau teaches that the rider can input an adjustment to the inter-vehicle following distance. see Pfau paragraph 0034 for “a target speed set by the rider” and that “the rider can adjust the inter-vehicular distance from the preceding vehicle.”
Regarding claim 12, Pfau teaches the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Yet Pfau does not further disclose:
The controller (20) according to claim 1,
the target (200C) is an imaginary vehicle (300I) that represents plural other straddle-type vehicles (300) traveling with the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group.
However, Isuzu teaches:
the target (200C) is an imaginary vehicle (300I) that represents plural other straddle-type vehicles (300) traveling with the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group (in the present disclosure, Fig. 6 and paragraph 0044 teaches that the vehicle 300I is vehicle 200A in Fig. 6 and has a “location shifted by a distance d1” as compared to vehicle 200A as shown in Fig. 6. This distance can “fluctuate according to the setting input by the rider” of the host vehicle, which is vehicle 100 in Fig. 6. This is as much to say as the host vehicle rider can adjust the following distance between the host vehicle and target vehicle, in the examiner’s opinion. With that in mind, see Isuzu page 4 of the attached English translation in which a driver can “select one of a plurality of preset inter-vehicle ranges via the inter-vehicle distance setting button of the ACC”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Pfau, to add the additional features of: the target (200C) is an imaginary vehicle (300I) that represents plural other straddle-type vehicles (300) traveling with the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group, as taught by Isuzu. The motivation for doing so would be to improve ACC experience when driving in various kinds of traffic, as recognized by Isuzu (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Bang (US2021/0110720).
Regarding claim 8, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Yet Pfau does not further teach:
The controlle (20) according to claim 1,
in the positional relationship adjustment operation, the controller prohibits switchover between the first operation mode and the second operation mode according to road line shape information.
However, Bang teaches:
in the positional relationship adjustment operation, the controller prohibits switchover between the first operation mode and the second operation mode according to road line shape information (see paragraph 0062 in which the system waits to re-form a platoon depending on the “road shape”. The examiner notes that this road shape is not specifically a “straight road” or “curved road” as in paragraph 0062 of the present disclosure, but the present claim does not require that particular.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Pfau, to add the additional features of: in the positional relationship adjustment operation, the controller prohibits switchover between the first operation mode and the second operation mode according to road line shape information, as taught by Bang. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the platoon to re-form quickly whenever possible, as recognized by Bang (see paragraphs 0005-0006).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Horn (US2025/0065889).
Regarding claim 10, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Yet Pfau does not further teach:
The controller (20) according to claim 1,
the target (200A) is the other straddle-type vehicle (300) that belongs to the same vehicle line (L1) as the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group.
However, Horn teaches:
the target (200A) is the other straddle-type vehicle (300) that belongs to the same vehicle line (L1) as the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group (see Horn Figs. 17 and 20 and paragraph 0101 for using ADAS in a line of motorcycles. See paragraph 0003 for ADAS including adaptive cruise control.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Pfau, to add the additional features of: the target (200A) is the other straddle-type vehicle (300) that belongs to the same vehicle line (L1) as the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group, as taught by Horn. The motivation for doing so would be to adapt ACC to the needs of motorcycles, as recognized by Horn (see paragraph 0005).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 3, wherein
the controller uses a different state amount set (S1, S2) between the first operation mode and the second operation mode.
According to present claim 1, the difference between the first and second operation mode is whether or not the host vehicle is traveling in a group. Note that a group is not a state in which the host vehicle is merely following a preceding vehicle but a state in which the host vehicle is in a travel group, or platoon.
One close prior art is Isuzu (JP7238719B2). Isuzu teaches a set of selectable inter-vehicle following distances. But Isuzu does not further teach that there are different sets depending on the operation mode.
Another close prior art is Nissan (JP6291737B2) teaches that a driver can use a “switch” to adjust the intervehicle following time when following a vehicle, but when in a “group” the driver cannot do this and the inter-vehicle following time is fixed to a “set value”. But Nissan does not teach that there are different sets depending on the operation mode.
Claim 9 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 1,
in the positional relationship adjustment operation, the controller prohibits switchover between the first operation mode and the second operation mode according to location information of the straddle-type vehicle (100) in the group.
One close prior art is Horn (US2025/0065889). Horn teaches in at least Fig. 20 and paragraph 0006 that a group of motorcycles can ride in “close formation”. See paragraph 0062 for riding in a “tighter formation” when in a “staggered formation” as compared to otherwise. See paragraph 0091 for adapting the proximity of the vehicles to the curvature of the road or curvature of the lane. See paragraph 0092 for the ADAS system taking into account not only the curvature of the lane but also “the lateral position of the motorcycle” within the lane.
Yet Horn does not prohibit switching the motorcycle into a convoy mode based on the position of the motorcycle in the group.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Hitachi (WO2020084915A1) teaches a system that will use both brakes to brake if the inter-vehicle following distance is below a certain value but will otherwise only brake with the rear brakes. Related to present claims 6 and 7, Hitachi does not make the braking distribution contingent on the state, i.e., whether or not the host vehicle is in a group travel state. Even if the closer inter-vehicle distance in Hitachi could be thought of as indicating a group travel state, Hitachi does not teach reducing or increasing the rear brakes over the course of the braking operation.
Oshida (US2021/0309195). See paragraph 006 for: “A controller according to the present invention is a controller that controls travel of a straddle-type vehicle, and includes a control section capable of executing adaptive cruise control in which the straddle-type vehicle is made to travel according to a distance from the straddle-type vehicle to a preceding vehicle, motion of the straddle-type vehicle, and a driver's instruction. When the control section causes generation of braking forces on wheels of the straddle-type vehicle during the adaptive cruise control, at a braking start time point at which the braking force starts being generated on each of the wheels, the control section brings braking force distribution between the front and rear wheels into an initial state where the braking force generated on the rear wheel is larger than the braking force generated on the front wheel, and then increases a distribution ratio for the front wheel in the braking force distribution with a lapse of time.”
See paragraph 0008 for “In this way, it is possible to suppress an excessive burden on a rear-wheel brake mechanism, which brakes the rear wheel, while suppressing the occurrence of the pitching caused by an abrupt change in the braking force distribution. Therefore, the adaptive cruise control for the straddle-type vehicle can appropriately be executed while the driver's comfort is secured.”
See also paragraph 0074-0075 for adjusting the brake distribution in relation to the pitch angle of the host vehicle.
Related to present claims 6 and 7, Oshida does not further teach that the braking distribution turns on and off with group travel mode. Note that in the present application, the host vehicle can travel using ACC and not be in group travel mode, and can travel using ACC while in group travel mode.
Pilanos (GB2570898A) teaches slowing down to form a platoon when a curved road is upcoming, but not prohibiting the formation of the platoon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665