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 Arguments
The amendment filed April 1, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4-6, 10, and 15 are amended. Claim 16 is new. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 15, and 16 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed April 1, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant states under the heading “I. Acknowledgement of Allowable Subject Matter” that claim 10 was indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the last detailed action, which was the Non-Final Rejection dated January 12, 2026. The applicant states that new claim 16 incorporates “the subject matter of claim 10.”
The applicant summarizes the interview under the heading “II. Interview Summary.” The examiner agrees with the summary.
The applicant argues under the heading “III. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112” that the claims have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection made in the last detailed action. The examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the indefiniteness rejections. The examiner therefore withdraws the rejections.
The applicant argues under the heading “IV. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102” that the claims have been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection made in the last detailed action. The applicant argues that the present claims are not anticipated by Pfau (US2023/0242100). Since the present independent claim 1 is substantially similar to the original claim 1, the applicant is effectively traversing the previous rejection. The applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Pfau does not treat a detected group travel state “as a condition that causes the controller to switch between distinct operation modes governing acquisition of positional relationship information…Pfau does not disclose a first operation mode used when group travel is not valid and a second, different operation mode used when group travel is valid, as recited by claim 1.” In the applicant’s view, as stated on page 9, “Pfau describes modifying rider-assistance behavior, such as adaptive cruise control, after a travel state has been identified…but Pfau does not disclose changing the mode in which positional relationship information itself is acquired based on the validity of a group travel mode.”
The applicant’s interpretation of Pfau comes into even clearer focus on page 9 where the applicant argues that Pfau does not teach that the host motorcycle actually acquires “different partial areas depending on an operation mode”. Pfau, according to the applicant is concerned with “how already-acquired sensor data is used or filtered” while in the present disclosure, according to the applicant, there is a “narrowing, widening, or shifting [of] an area used to determine the presence or absence of a preceding vehicle” depending on the group travel state. The examiner respectfully does not agree with this because in the present disclosure, as will be discussed more later, what the word acquire means includes already-processed sensor data. For the present system to “acquire” surrounding environment information means that it first processes sensor output.
In the above quote the applicant identifies the issue of what happens during sensor data acquisition as compared to processing data after it has been acquired. In the applicant’s view of Pfau, the “detectors remain active regardless of the travel state” and data is “acquired continuously.” Adjusting or selecting an area used to determine the presence or absence of a target is performed merely in “post-acquisition processing”. This is different, according to the applicant, from changing the partial area that is subjected to acquisition depending on a first and second mode.
To determine if these arguments are persuasive some analysis of present claims 1 and 2 are necessary. Claim 1 recites that the controller is configured to “acquire surrounding environment information…based on output of a surrounding environment sensor”. Then in the second bullet of the claim it recites that “based on the surrounding environment information” the controller will “acquire positional relationship information” between the vehicle and target. This makes sense. “based on output of a….sensor” the controller will acquire information about the surrounding environment”. Then, based on the surrounding environment information the controller will determine what surroundings the host vehicle. In summary, the sensor acquires “surrounding environment information”. The analysis or processing of that sensor data is what is called “positional relationship information,” according to claim 1.
What changes based on whether or not the host vehicle is in a group travel mode? In the fourth bullet of claim 1, the claim recites that when group travel mode is “not valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a first operation mode”. It would seem that a better word for “acquires” here is really: determines. That is because the word acquires implies passive reception. A sensor might acquire data on the external environment. But “positional relationship information” is not what the sensor passively acquires, it is what the controller actively determines based on the analysis of the sensor data. Controllers determine while sensors acquire.
Yet the present disclosure, and Pfau, teach that there can be a “section” within a controller and that this section can “acquire”. See Fig. 2 for section 21 and paragraph 0029, which teaches that the acquisition section 21 “acquires.” So even if the controller determines certain information through an analysis, it can send that information to another section of the controller which acquires it. In any case, the point is clear: the fourth bullet states that when the host vehicle is not in a group travel mode, the controller determines the positional relationship information, which is based on surrounding environment information, which itself is based on output of a surrounding environment sensor “in a first operation mode.”
The fourth and fifth bullets really define the first and second operation modes. But what changes about the vehicle system behavior based on the mode? That is found in the last bullet, which is the sixth bullet. It recites that “the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode.” This relates to the applicant’s argument that present claim 1 teaches that the area that is “subjected to acquisition” of the “surrounding environment information” differs depending on the mode. Note that the “surrounding environment information” is what the sensor acquires, not what the controller determines (at least it appear that way so far). So what the last bullet appears to be teaching is that the area that the sensor even acquires sensor data from “differs” based on whether the host vehicle is in the first or second operation mode.
Claim 2 then adds that “in the first operation mode and the second operation mode, output of the same surrounding environment sensor (11) is subjected to different processing, and the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired.” Claim 1 already stated that “the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition” by the surrounding environment information “differs” depending on the mode. Claim 2 then adds that, not only does the area acquired by the surrounding environment information differ, but the output of the sensor is “subjected to different processing” in order to acquire, or determine, the “surrounding environment information”.
At first glance it might seem like claim 1 teaches that “the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected” to sensor output changes. But that is not the case. Claim 2 makes a very important point. That is that there is something called the “output of the same surrounding environment sensor (11)”. So in one broad reasonable interpretation, the sensor 11 is constantly outputting data. Claim 2 adds that this “output” is “subjected to different processing”. That is fine. Then claim 2 importantly states that it is this “different processing” that defines the “surrounding environment information.” That is how the entire phrase in claim 2 should be interpreted that reads: “in the first operation mode and the second operation mode, output of the same surrounding environment sensor (11) is subjected to different processing, and the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired.”
So when claim 1 states that
In the examiner’s opinion, there is “output” of the sensor 11. Depending on the mode, this sensor “output” undergoes “different processing”. Then, depending on that processing “the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired.”
So even though claim 1 appears to imply that “surrounding environment information” is the sensor output, that is emphatically not the case. The surrounding environment information is actually processed from the sensor output.
Now that that is clear, it is possible to re-visit claim 1 to determine what it actually means. In particular, what does it mean at the end of claim 1 when it recites: “the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode”? Considering that “surrounding environment information” is itself sensor output that has been processed, according to claim 2, what this clause in claim 1 does not mean, is that: the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to sensor output differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode”. In fact, now that it is clear from claim 2 that the sensor 11 is “subjected to…processing, and that the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired,” is somewhat makes sense that claim 1 uses the term “acquire” when reciting that the controller is configured to “acquire surrounding environment information of a partial area (P1, P2) in surroundings of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on output of a surrounding environment sensor (11)”. That makes sense because, while the controller performs the “processing” of the sensor output referred to in claim (proven by claim 5 which states that “the controller processes the output of the plurality of surrounding environment senesors”), this processed sensor output that is now called “surrounding environment information” is, in a sense, passively “acquire[d]” by the controller, as recited in claim 1, after the controller actively processes it.
Again, there is sensor “output,” and there is “processing” of that output to produce “surrounding environment information.” Then, according to claim 1, “the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode.” What exactly “subjected to acquisition” means, and how “surrounding environment information,” which is processed sensor output, can be “subjected to acquisition” requires some explanation. The clause seems to mean that one area may be of interest in one mode, and another area or a combination of areas in another mode. The “subjected to acquisition” line in claim 1 does not state that a sensor does not output data for processing in both areas, or even that that sensor data is not processed. Surrounding environment information is processed sensor output. Whether the controller chooses to “acquisition” that processed sensor output called surrounding environment information is really what is being implied in this clause of claim 1. The sensor data has been processed. The surrounding environment information is available. But whether the controller choses to “acquisition” this surrounding environment information is another matter, and “differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode.”
One thing that can be said for sure is that, according to claim 3, “a first surrounding environment sensor” is “processed in the first operation mode” and “a second surrounding environment sensor” is “processed in the second operation mode”. This does not mean that the first and second sensors are on or off, but that a certain sensor is “processed” in a certain mode. This claim does not state the second sensor output is not processed in the first mode and that the first sensor output is not processed in the second mode. For all the examiner knows, both sensor outputs are always processed in both modes. The examiner views this position as in no way unreasonable. That in no way contradicts the teachings of claim 3.
Claim 8 specifically teaches that in the second operation mode, the first and second sensors, 11x and 11y, respectively, are actively outputting data and that data is being processed to generate surrounding environment information. According to claim 9, these sensors 11x and 11y have different viewing angles and detection ranges or distances, but that relates to the sensor specs themselves, not the processing of the output of those sensors. Neither claims 8 or 9 teach that a subset of a sensor’s output is processed. It is not that the controller determines to process only a narrower portion of a sensor’s output depending on a mode. That is not claimed in claims 8 and 9.
With this understanding of the present claims, is it persuasive to argue, as the applicant does on page 9 of the Remarks, that “In Pfau, the surrounding environment detectors remain active regardless of the travel state, and surrounding environment information is acquired continuously. Adjusting or selecting an area ‘used to determine’ the presence or absence of a target merely describes post-acquisition processing or utilization of sensor data, not a change in the partial area that is subjected to acquisition. Claim 1, by contrast, recites that the partial area itself that is subjected to acquisition differs between the first and second operation modes.”
The applicant characterizes Pfau as merely teaching “post-acquisition processing” in contrast to claim 1 in which, in the applicant’s words, “the partial area itself that is subjected to acquisition differs between the first and second operation modes.” In the examiner’s view, the very thing that is “subjected to acquisition” in claim 1 is post-processed data. That was largely the point of the foregoing remarks by the examiner.
The examiner is not arguing that there is no difference between the disclosures. But if the applicant wishes to claim subject matter in which a partial area is not even output by a sensor, the applicant will need to claim that with clarity. As already mentioned, for claim 3 to state that a first sensor output is processed in the first mode and a second sensor output is processed in a second mode does not claim a system in which what areas are subjected to sensor output changes based on the mode. One reason for that is because claim 3 itself does not state what happens to the second senor in the first mode and the first sensor in the second mode. For the examiner to remain agnostic about it isn’t some sophistry, it is really how the claim should be interpreted under BRI. The second reason is that claim 1, for its part, also does not teach that which area is subjected to sensor output is mode-dependent. Rather it teaches that the controller can choose to acquire already processed “surrounding environment information” from one area or another and that the choice “differs” depending on the mode. That is “post-acquisition processing” because surrounding environment information is processed sensor output.
The countervailing interpretation from the one the examiner just discussed (which was based on the claims) would be that the disclosure and claims rarely uses the word processing or anything related to that. And, although claim 3 claims processing sensor output and that was used to interpret claim 1 and the rest of the claim set, the surrounding environment information that is acquired by the acquisition section 21 of the controller is actually sensor output. In this countervailing interpretation, when paragraph 0029 teaches “the acquisition section 21 acquires surrounding environment information of a partial area in the surroundings of the…vehicle…on the basis of the output of at least one of the surrounding environment sensors 11” that means that the acquisition section 21 acquires raw sensor data and processes it.
The examiner does not subscribe to this countervailing argument, however. If it were true, then why does paragraph 0029 state that “the surrounding environment information includes information on a target that is located in the partial area.” Doesn’t such an identification of a target require processing? It reasonably does. So the surrounding environment information cannot be raw sensor data. It must be processed first. Furthermore, paragraph 0033 seems to suggest the countervailing interpretation by writing that “the acquisition section 21 [which is part of the controller] determines a vehicle that travels ahead of the…[host] vehicle 100 as the target 200.” This “determines” implies that the acquisition section 21 processes raw sensor data to determine a target ahead. But immediately the paragraph adds “More specifically…” as if to say: “what I really mean by determines is this”. The paragraph then states that the acquisition section 21 may acquire the surrounding environment information of the area P11 by using a detection result in an entire area…or…by using a detection result in a partial area.” If this “detection result” means the result of processing, then this seems to mean that he acquisition section 21 does not process the sensor data, but rather acquires already processed information. Other sections of the spec. might be interpreted to imply that the “detection result” is basically an area of detection.
Also, paragraph 0047 teaches that “the acquisition section 21 processes the output of the surrounding environment sensor 11”. This is important. So the acquisition section 21 “processes” sensor output. The paragraph goes on to state that after this processing the acquisition section 21 “acquires the surrounding environment information”. It seems to the examiner that the acquisition section 21 both processes raw sensor data, which transforms that raw sensor data into “surrounding environment information.” Once the processing is complete, the surrounding environment information is created and therefore acquired.
Overall, the examiner believes that there is processing of sensor output data, and there is surrounding environment information which is based on the sensor output, but not identical to it. This interpretation is supported by the specification and claims. If the applicant decides to amend to use particular phrases from the specification, such as “detection result” the examiner suggests a definition of the term and citations from the specification to support that definition. It might also be the case that a further clarifying amendment to the last bullet of claim 1 could be created to state more clearly what is meant by an area that is subjected to the acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs. The examiner does not know, but it may be that the applicant wants to claim something along the lines of a system in which an area that even raw sensor data is acquired for processing differs depending on the mode and that in one mode. If so, specification citations in the spec. to support that should be provided.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully does not find the arguments persuasive. Please see the rejections below.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites:
A controller (20) for a straddle-type vehicle (100), the controller (20) configured to:
acquire surrounding environment information of a partial area (P1, P2) in surroundings of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on output of a surrounding environment sensor (11) mounted to the straddle-type vehicle (100) and
acquire positional relationship information between the traveling straddle-type vehicle (100) and a target (200) based on the surrounding environment information; and
execute a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on the positional relationship information, wherein
in the case where a group travel mode as a mode in which the straddle-type vehicle (100) travels with other straddle-type vehicle (300) in a group is not valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a first operation mode, and
in the case where the group travel mode is valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a second operation mode,
the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode, and
the controller executes a different rider-assistance operation in
a case where the other straddle-type vehicle (300) is detected at least by a first surrounding environment sensor and
a case where the other straddle-type vehicle (300) is not detected by the first surrounding environment sensor but the other straddle-type vehicle (300) is detected by a second surrounding environment sensor.
Claim 10, indicated as allowable in the last detailed action, recited that the controller executes different operations “between a case where…and a case where…” But in the present claim it is not clear whether the phrasing is supposed to mean that the controller executes the different operation whenever either condition of “a case where…and a case where…” is met, or if the controller executes a different operation in “a case where…” as compared to “a case where…” For examination purposes, the two different cases in the claim will be interpreted to mean that the controller executes a different rider-assistance operation in one case as compared to the other case. That follows what claim 10 teaches.
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 1-7, 12, 14, and 15 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 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 surrounding environment information of a partial area (P1, P2) in surroundings of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on output of see Pfau, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for surrounding vehicles 110, 301a, and 301b being detected using sensors 11c and 11d. See paragraph 0023 for detectors 11a through 11d “when necessary”. See paragraph 0024 for detector 11a providing detection of the “front portion” of the host vehicle. See detector 11c for providing detection of the “left side” of the host vehicle.)
acquire positional relationship information between the traveling straddle-type vehicle (100) and a target (200) based on the surrounding environment information (see Pfau, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for vehicles 110, 301a, and 301b being detected using sensors 11c and 11d.); and
a rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on the positional relationship informationsee paragraph 0034 for the host motorcycle having an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system wherein when a preceding vehicle is present, the ACC adjust the inter-vehicle 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 at least one of the surrounding environment detectors 11 of the host vehicle.), wherein
in the case where a group travel mode as a mode in which the straddle-type vehicle (100) travels with at least one other straddle-type vehicle (300) in a group is not valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a first operation mode (in the present disclosure, see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0033 for the case of when a “group travel mode” is “not valid” then the host vehicle is in a “first operation mode” and the vehicle acquires sensors data in “a partial area P1”. In contrast, see paragraph 0045 for when the group travel mode “is valid” then the host vehicle is traveling in a group and the host vehicle is in the “second operation mode”. In that case, the host vehicle acquires sensor data of “a partial area P2” that differs from “partial area P1”.
With that in mind, see Pfau paragraph 0035 for the teaching that the host vehicle’s system in some cases “narrows an area used to determine presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within a detection range of the surrounding environment detector 11a”. See paragraph 0036 for the system that in some cases “widens the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle”. The widening may be selective. The system “may only widen the area on a side where the vehicle 301a is present (the right side in the example of Fig. 4).” Narrowing can also be selective. See also paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.), and
in the case where the group travel mode is valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a second operation mode (in claim 1 and the present disclosure, the “operation mode” defines sensors while the “group travel mode,” which can be on (valid) or off, is a different mode. But in this clause the second operation mode of the sensors is contingent on being in the group travel mode. With that in mind, see Pfau, paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.), and
the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode (see Pfau paragraph 0035 for the teaching that the host vehicle’s system in some cases “narrows an area used to determine presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within a detection range of the surrounding environment detector 11a”. See paragraph 0036 for the system that in some cases “widens the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle”. The widening may be selective. The system “may only widen the area on a side where the vehicle 301a is present (the right side in the example of Fig. 4).” Narrowing can also be selective. See also paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.).
Regarding claim 2, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
in the first operation mode and the second operation mode, output of the same surrounding environment sensor (11) is subjected to different processing, and the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired (in the present disclosure, see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0046. In a broad reasonable interpretation, the same sensor can be used in both modes, but with a larger or smaller subset of the sensor data be processed depending on whether the host vehicle is in the first or second operation mode. With that in mind, see Pfau paragraph 0035 for the teaching that the host vehicle’s system in some cases “narrows an area used to determine presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within a detection range of the surrounding environment detector 11a”. See paragraph 0036 for the system that in some cases “widens the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle”. The widening may be selective. The system “may only widen the area on a side where the vehicle 301a is present (the right side in the example of Fig. 4).” Narrowing can also be selective. See also paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode. See also paragraph 0037 for a host vehicle system that “shifts the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within the detection range of the …detector 11a in a manner to only include the lane L1”).
Regarding claim 3, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
output of a first surrounding environment sensorsee the end of paragraph 0034 for the motorcycle 100 traveling using “adaptive cruise control operation” in which the target “proceeding vehicle,” to which the host vehicle follows, is detected “on the basis of the output of the surrounding environment detector 11a,” which is a forward-facing sensor. See paragraph 0035 for the detector 11a being arranged “so as to exclude” vehicles to the left front and right front.),
output of a second surrounding environment sensorsee Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for teaching that when the host vehicle 100 travels “in a group with other vehicles 110, 301a, [and] 301b” the system uses “detectors 11c, [and] 11d,” which are left- and right-facing sensors. See also paragraph 0028 for teaching that “in a situation where the straddle-type vehicle 100 travels between rows of vehicles, that is, travels between a left row of vehicles 200 and a right row of vehicles 300, the acquisition section 21 acquires the left target information and the right target information on the basis of the output of the surrounding environment detectors 11c, [and] 11d.”), and
the surrounding environment information is thereby acquired (see paragraph 0030.).
Regarding claim 4, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
in the second operation mode, compared to the first operation mode, the surrounding environment information is acquired based on output of a plurality see the end of paragraph 0034 for a ACC mode when just following a single proceeding vehicle and therefore just using a single sensor, 11a. See paragraph 0030 for traveling in a group mode using multiple sensors. see paragraph 0056 which teaches that left and right target information is obtained using the detectors 11c and 11d and both are located “just” to the right or left of the host vehicle so that “inclusion of an unnecessary area in the detection range is suppressed” reducing processing and improving accuracy.).
Regarding claim 5, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 4.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 4, wherein
the controller processes the output of the pluralitysee paragraphs 0029 for the host vehicle determining that the host vehicle is traveling next to other vehicles within a predetermined distance for a “specified [time] period or longer”. If so, the system determines that the host vehicle is traveling in a “group,” as discussed in paragraph 0030. Paragraph 0030 begins with “As an example,” which means, as an example of what was discussed in paragraph 0029. So Pfau teaches that in one embodiment, the host vehicle can detect surrounding vehicles using multiple sensors and then determine that the group travel mode is valid, such as if the vehicles are nearby for longer than a specific time period.).
Regarding claim 6, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 4.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 4, wherein
the controller processes the output of the pluralitysee Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for “travel line DL”. The system uses detectors 11c and 11d to determining the surrounding vehicles and their relatives distances from the host vehicle in at least the width direction of the host vehicle, which is to say, in the width direction of travel line DL. See paragraph 0030, last sentence for determining a “travel row”. See paragraph 0032 for determining a right target and right target information. See also paragraph 0058.), and
the controller executes the rider-assistance operation based on the positional relationship information and the vehicle line informationsee paragraph 0036 for the system when in “group travel” reducing the “inter-vehicular distance from the preceding vehicle”. The concept is that in group travel mode the vehicles in the group, including the host vehicle, can travel closer together than they would otherwise, even when using ACC with just one other proceeding vehicle.).
Regarding claim 7, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the partial area (P2) that is subjected to the acquisition of the surrounding environment information in the second operation mode includes an area (P22) on a side of the straddle-type vehicle (100) (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for teaching that when the host vehicle 100 travels “in a group with other vehicles 110, 301a, [and] 301b” the system uses “detectors 11c, [and] 11d,” which are left- and right-facing sensors. See also paragraph 0028 for teaching that “in a situation where the straddle-type vehicle 100 travels between rows of vehicles, that is, travels between a left row of vehicles 200 and a right row of vehicles 300, the acquisition section 21 acquires the left target information and the right target information on the basis of the output of the surrounding environment detectors 11c, [and] 11d.”).
Regarding claim 12, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
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 14, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Pfau further discloses:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
the controller executes, as the rider-assistance operation, positional relationship adjustment operation to automatically change a travel speed of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on the positional relationship informationsee 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.).
Regarding claim 15, Pfau discloses:
A control method for 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 (S 101) in which a controller (20) acquires surrounding environment information of a partial area (P1, P2) in surroundings of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on output of a surrounding environment sensor (11) mounted to the straddle-type vehicle (100) (see Pfau, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for surrounding vehicles 110, 301a, and 301b being detected using sensors 11c and 11d. See paragraph 0023 for detectors 11a through 11d “when necessary”. See paragraph 0024 for detector 11a providing detection of the “front portion” of the host vehicle. See detector 11c for providing detection of the “left side” of the host vehicle.) and
acquires positional relationship information between the traveling straddle-type vehicle (100) and a target (200) based on the surrounding environment information (see Pfau, Fig. 4 and paragraph 0030 for vehicles 110, 301a, and 301b being detected using sensors 11c and 11d.); and
an execution step (S 102) in the controller (20) executes rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by a rider of the straddle-type vehicle (100) based on the positional relationship information acquired in the acquisition step (S 101) (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 inter-vehicle 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 at least one of the surrounding environment detectors 11 of the host vehicle.),
wherein in the acquisition step (S 101),
in the case where a group travel mode as a mode in which the straddle-type vehicle (100) travels with at least one other straddle-type vehicle (300) in a group is not valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a first operation mode (see Pfau paragraph 0035 for the teaching that the host vehicle’s system in some cases “narrows an area used to determine presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within a detection range of the surrounding environment detector 11a”. See paragraph 0036 for the system that in some cases “widens the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle”. The widening may be selective. The system “may only widen the area on a side where the vehicle 301a is present (the right side in the example of Fig. 4).” Narrowing can also be selective. See also paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.), and
in the case where the group travel mode is valid, the controller acquires the positional relationship information in a second operation mode (see Pfau, paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.), and
the partial area (P1, P2) that is subjected to acquisition of the surrounding environment information differs between the first operation mode and the second operation mode (see Pfau paragraph 0035 for the teaching that the host vehicle’s system in some cases “narrows an area used to determine presence or absence of the preceding vehicle within a detection range of the surrounding environment detector 11a”. See paragraph 0036 for the system that in some cases “widens the area used to determine the presence or absence of the preceding vehicle”. The widening may be selective. The system “may only widen the area on a side where the vehicle 301a is present (the right side in the example of Fig. 4).” Narrowing can also be selective. See also paragraph 0040 which teaches that the narrowing of the areas can be related to whether or not the host vehicle is in a “group travel” mode.).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Kato (US2023/0294672).
Regarding claim 8, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 7.
Yet Pfau does not further disclose:
The controller (20) according to claim 7, wherein
in the second operation mode, the surrounding environment information of the area (P22) on the side is acquired based on output of at least a first surrounding environment sensor (11x) and a second surrounding environment sensor (11 y) as the surrounding environment sensors (11).
However, Kato teaches:
in the second operation mode, the surrounding environment information of the area (P22) on the side is acquired based on output of at least a first surrounding environment sensor (11x) and a second surrounding environment sensor (11 y) as the surrounding environment sensors (11) (see claim 1 for “A control device for controlling a vehicle comprising: a first sensor that is attached to a first position of a vehicle and detects a first range including a side region of the vehicle; and a second sensor that is attached to a second position of the vehicle and detects a second range including the side region, wherein at least a part of detection ranges of the first sensor and the second sensor overlap each other”. See Fig. 6 and paragraph 0071 for support for this claim. See paragraph 0019 for the vehicle being not limited to a four-wheel vehicle but also “may be a straddle type vehicle”.).
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 second operation mode, the surrounding environment information of the area (P22) on the side is acquired based on output of at least a first surrounding environment sensor (11x) and a second surrounding environment sensor (11 y) as the surrounding environment sensors (11), as taught by Kato. The motivation for doing so would be to have better object detection for traveling safety, as recognized by Kato (see paragraphs 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Kato (US2023/0294672) in further view of
Fairfield et al. (US2021/0197852)
Regarding claim 9, Pfau and Kato teach the controller (20) according to claim 8.
Yet Pfau and Kato do not further teach:
The controller (20) according to claim 8, wherein
compared to the second surrounding environment sensor (11 y), a viewing angle of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is narrow, and a detectable distance of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is long.
However, Fairfield teaches:
compared to the second surrounding environment sensor (11 y), a viewing angle of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is narrow, and a detectable distance of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is long (see Fig. 3B and paragraph 0057-0058 for various types of sensors with various viewing angles and radii. See Fig. 3B for sensor 328 being narrow and long as compared to sensor 322.).
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 Kato, to add the additional features of: compared to the second surrounding environment sensor (11 y), a viewing angle of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is narrow, and a detectable distance of the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) is long, as taught by Fairfield. The motivation for doing so would be to have better object detection for traveling safety, as recognized by Fairfield (see paragraphs 0039).
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.
The examiner also maintains that using various overlapping sensors with ranges that are narrow and long as well as wide and short is well known in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Horn (US2025/0065889).
Regarding claim 11, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Yet Pfau does not further teach:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfau (US2023/0242100) in view of Isuzu (JP7238719B2).
Regarding claim 13, Pfau discloses the controller (20) according to claim 1.
Yet Pfau does not further teach:
The controller (20) according to claim 1, wherein
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. 5 and paragraph 0043 teaches that the vehicle 300I is vehicle 200A in Fig. 5 and has a “location shifted by a distance d1” as compared to vehicle 200A as shown in Fig. 5. This distance can “fluctuate according to the setting input by the rider” of the host vehicle, which is vehicle 100 in Fig. 5. 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.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if any 35 USC 112 rejections can be resolved, and 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 10 is not taught by the prior art of record, alone or in combination. The claim recites:
The controller (20) according to claim 9, wherein
the controller executes a
a case where the other straddle-type vehicle (300) is not detected by the first surrounding environment sensor (11x) but the other straddle-type vehicle (300) is detected by the second surrounding environment sensor (11 y).
In the present disclosure, paragraph 0037 teaches that when the group travel mode is valid, the system “executes the different rider-assistance operation from that in the normal state”. Paragraph 0048 teaches that “the different rider-assistance operation” is executed when the target vehicle is detected “at least by the first surrounding environment sensor 11x” as compared to when the target “is detected not by the first surrounding environment sensor 11x but by the second surrounding environment sensor 11y.” Paragraph 0049 discusses an “example” in which a target 200 is detected by “both” sensor 11x and 11y, but then only 11y can detect the target. The different rider-assistance operation may include that the positional relationship between the host vehicle and the target is “suppressed from having an approaching tendency” at least for a time.
In one broad reasonable interpretation, this means that if a target 200 is in the location as shown in Fig. 6 (and suppose sensor 11x is fixed relative to the host vehicle and covers the area P22n) and then target vehicle 200 drops back directly alongside of the host vehicle in such a way as sensor 11x can no longer detect target 200 though sensor 11y can, then the host vehicle will not seek to accelerate to catch up with and approach the target vehicle.
This is not taught by Pfau (US2023/0242100), Kato (US2023/0294672), or Fairfield et al. (US2021/0197852).
One close prior art is Schwindt et al. (US2012/0330528), owned by Bosch, the present assignee. See paragraph 0014 for teaching that “a single sensor may have difficulty tracking the target vehicle”. See paragraph 0028 and Fig. 2 for requiring that both radar and video confirm the presence of a target object or the presence of an open lane before the host vehicle begins following it for ACC purposes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights