DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This action is FINAL.
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20210276561 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Matsumoto teaches:
A lane change assistance device capable of executing a lane change of a host vehicle from a host lane on which the host vehicle travels to an adjacent lane adjacent to the host lane, the lane change assistance device comprising:
a hardware processor configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the host vehicle;
(Matsumoto – [0046] “First of all, a group of sensors and an operation portion of the vehicle 2 will be described. The external sensor 3 is a detector that detects information on an external situation of the vehicle 2. The external situation is a situation around the vehicle 2, for example, objects that exist around the vehicle 2 and a running environment of the vehicle 2.”)
determine, when another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane is detected by recognizing the surrounding situation, whether the lane change is possible based on a relative speed between the host vehicle and the another vehicle and an inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the another vehicle; and
(Matsumoto – [0091] “First of all, the path generation unit 203 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on a running environment (a lane width) recognized by the second external situation recognition unit 201, a recognition result (a relative distance and a relative speed) of the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle, and a recognition result (a speed and a lateral position of the vehicle 2) of the second running state recognition unit 202. As an example, the path generation unit 203 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on the lane widths of the driving lane and the adjacent lane and changes in positional relationship among the vehicle 2, the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle with time.”)
execute the lane change based on a result of the determination, wherein
(Matsumoto – [0111] “If it is determined in the lane change possibility processing procedure (S46) that a lane change is possible, the path generation unit 203 generates the path P of the lane change according to a geometrical method within the range of the turning performance of the vehicle 2, as a path generation processing procedure (S48).” [0112] “Then, the steering control unit 206 controls the steering of the vehicle 2 through the path P of the lane change generated through the path generation processing procedure (S48), as a steering control processing procedure (S58). Then, the steering control ECU 20 outputs an OFF signal of one of the direction indicators, as the direction indicator OFF processing procedure (S60).”)
the hardware processor is configured to further execute travel speed control for controlling a travel speed of the host vehicle based on a target speed set in advance, and
the hardware processor is further configured to determine, while the travel speed control is being executed, whether the lane change is possible
(Matsumoto – [0066] “Incidentally, the first acceleration calculation unit 104 determines whether or not the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 recognized by the first running state recognition unit 102 is equal to or lower than a set speed determined in advance by the driver (including a legal speed that is ordered by decree). If the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 is not equal to or lower than the set speed determined in advance by the driver (including the legal speed ordered by decree), the first acceleration calculation unit 104 calculates a target acceleration (a normal target acceleration) such that the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 becomes equal to the set vehicle speed. The target selection unit 105 selects the normal target acceleration as the target acceleration that is eventually used for speed control.” [0110] “Subsequently, the path generation unit 203 of the steering control ECU 20 determines whether or not a lane change is possible, based on the lane widths recognized through the external situation recognition processing procedure (S42), the relative distance and relative speed between the first preceding vehicle and the second preceding vehicle, and the speed and lateral position of the vehicle 2 recognized through the running state recognition processing procedure (S44), as a lane change possibility determination processing procedure (S46).”)
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Hayakawa teaches:
the hardware processor is further configured to determine, while the travel speed control is being executed, whether the lane change is possible based on the relative speed derived based on the target speed.
(Hayakawa – [0102] “In the next step S67, the control device 19 uses the autonomous lane change control function to calculate the second target lateral speed Vh2 by using equation (a) described above. Specifically, the first target lateral speed Vh1 is multiplied by the coefficients C1 to C5 to calculate the second target lateral speed Vh2. For example, when the first target lateral speed Vh1 is 0.5 m/sec, the coefficient C1 of the inter-vehicle distance D is 0.9, the coefficient C2 of the relative speed Vd is 0.9, the coefficient C3 of the road width Lw is 1.0, the coefficient C4 of the radius Lr is 0.8, and the coefficient C5 of the amount of rainfall is 1.0, the second target lateral speed Vh2 is 0.324 m/s. In the next step S68, the control device 19 uses the autonomous lane change control function to set the calculated second target lateral speed Vh2 as a target lateral speed to accelerate upon the lane change.”)
Hayakawa is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a lane change. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto with Hayakawa to determine a relative speed based on a target speed in order to provide a vehicle travel control apparatus capable of making a lane change so that the vehicle can be easily recognized by a following vehicle (Hayakawa, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein when there is a lane change request from a driver of the host vehicle, the hardware processor determines whether the lane change is possible.
(Matsumoto – [0070] “The ON signal acquisition unit 200 acquires an ON signal of one of the direction indicators of the vehicle 2. The ON signal acquisition unit 200 acquires an ON signal of the direction indicator for the right direction or an ON signal of the direction indicator for the left direction, which is output from the direction indicator operation portion 5 in accordance with the driver's operation.”)
Claims 2-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20210276561 A1) and in further view of Niino et al. (US 20170313311 A1).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Niino teaches:
wherein the another vehicle is a following vehicle traveling behind the host vehicle.
(Niino – Fig. 6 vehicle 101 traveling behind the own vehicle 100, [0073] “In the example shown in FIG. 6, a state is shown in which, after the lane change is performed in the state shown in FIG. 5A, that is, the preceding vehicle 101 is passed, the area of a size necessary for performing lane change is present ahead of the preceding vehicle 101 that has been passed. In this case, lane change is performed with the speed of the own vehicle 100 reduced to 90 km/h, which is the preset vehicle speed (step S170).”)
Niino is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining when to perform a lane change. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the travel speed control is control to set the travel speed of the host vehicle to the target speed when a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the host vehicle is not present in the host lane, and to adjust the travel speed of the host vehicle according to a travel speed of the preceding vehicle when the preceding vehicle is present in the host lane.
(Matsumoto – [0099] “As described hitherto, if the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 is equal to or lower than the set vehicle speed and the first preceding vehicle does not exist, the speed control ECU 10 performs automatic speed control to make the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 coincident with the set vehicle speed.” [0100] “In the preceding vehicle determination processing procedure (S16), if it is determined that the first preceding vehicle exists, the first external situation recognition unit 101 executes a speed calculation processing procedure (S18). The first external situation recognition unit 101 calculates a speed V.sub.A of the first preceding vehicle, through the use of the relative speed V.sub.DA recognized through the external situation recognition processing procedure (S10) and the speed V.sub.S of the vehicle 2 recognized through the running state recognition processing procedure (S12), as the speed calculation processing procedure (S18).”)
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to accelerate, when executing the lane change during the execution of the travel speed control, the host vehicle based on the target speed before completion of movement to the adjacent lane by the lane change.
(Matsumoto – [0068] “As described above, when the steering control ECU 20 calculates the second target acceleration, the target selection unit 105 carries out arbitration of the target acceleration during a lane change.”)
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to accelerate, when executing the lane change during the execution of the travel speed control, the host vehicle to the target speed before the completion of the movement to the adjacent lane by the lane change.
(Matsumoto – [0068] “As described above, when the steering control ECU 20 calculates the second target acceleration, the target selection unit 105 carries out arbitration of the target acceleration during a lane change.” [0077] “The second acceleration calculation unit 204 of the steering control ECU 20 outputs the calculated second target acceleration a2 to the target selection unit 105 of the speed control ECU 10.”)
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a preceding vehicle that prevents acceleration based on the target speed of the host vehicle is further present in the adjacent lane, the hardware processor determines not to execute the lane change.
(Niino – [0047] “At step S130, the control apparatus 15 determines whether or not, of the preceding vehicle and the adjacent vehicle, the vehicle having a smaller difference in speed from the preset vehicle speed is the adjacent vehicle. Specifically, the control apparatus 15 determines the smaller of the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, based on the own vehicle information, the preceding vehicle information, and the adjacent vehicle information acquired at steps S110 to S125.” [0049] “At step S131, the control apparatus 15 makes an affirmative determination when the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed are the same, and the speed of the adjacent vehicle is higher than the preset vehicle speed. The control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S132, with lane change to the adjacent lane set as the recommended behavior. Meanwhile, when a negative determination is made, the control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S159, with tracking of the preceding vehicle set as the recommended behavior.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a preceding vehicle that prevents acceleration based on the target speed of the host vehicle is further present in the host lane, the hardware processor determines not to execute the lane change.
(Niino – [0047] “At step S130, the control apparatus 15 determines whether or not, of the preceding vehicle and the adjacent vehicle, the vehicle having a smaller difference in speed from the preset vehicle speed is the adjacent vehicle. Specifically, the control apparatus 15 determines the smaller of the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed, based on the own vehicle information, the preceding vehicle information, and the adjacent vehicle information acquired at steps S110 to S125.” [0049] “At step S131, the control apparatus 15 makes an affirmative determination when the difference between the speed of the preceding vehicle and the preset vehicle speed and the difference between the speed of the adjacent vehicle and the preset vehicle speed are the same, and the speed of the adjacent vehicle is higher than the preset vehicle speed. The control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S132, with lane change to the adjacent lane set as the recommended behavior. Meanwhile, when a negative determination is made, the control apparatus 15 proceeds to step S159, with tracking of the preceding vehicle set as the recommended behavior.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Niino further teaches:
wherein the hardware processor is further configured to propose, when the travel speed control is being executed and the preceding vehicle is present in the host lane, the lane change to a driver of the host vehicle based on a speed difference between a current travel speed of the host vehicle and the target speed.
(Niino – [0155] “At step S230, the control apparatus 15 outputs a command to the speaker 143 and the display 144 to transmit an inquiry to the driver of the own vehicle regarding whether or not to change the preset vehicle speed. That is, the control apparatus 15 makes an inquiry to the driver of the own vehicle using audio and an image displayed in the display 144 regarding whether or not to change the preset vehicle speed such as to set the current vehicle speed, which is higher than the basic preset vehicle speed, as a new preset vehicle speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Niino to include deciding to perform a lane change based on the speed of the preceding vehicles in order to suitably determine the traffic lane without the driving having to make the determination themselves (Niino, para. [0008]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1), in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20210276561 A1), in further view of in view of Niino et al. (US 20170313311 A1), and in further view of Nattermann et al. (US 20210053571 A1).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino teaches the limitations of claim 3.
The combination of Matsumotom, Hayakawa, and Niino does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however Nattermann teaches:
wherein in a case where the travel speed control is being executed and a speed difference between a current travel speed of the host vehicle and the target speed is equal to or greater than a threshold value, the hardware processor determines not to execute the lane change.
(Nattermann – [0037] “In the subsequent step 210, the actual and target speeds are related to one another and their deviation is compared to a threshold value. If the deviation is below the threshold value, the process jumps back to step 200, so that no lane change is considered.”)
Nattermann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a lane change of a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto, Hayakawa, and Niino with Nattermann to prevent a lane change based on the difference between the actual and target speed in order to increase the safety of road users and the comfort for occupants during a driving process (Nattermann, para. [0004]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20210276561 A1) and in further view of Tsuji et al. (US 20200247416 A1).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Matsumoto further teaches:
wherein the lane change request is a predetermined operation for a blinker lever of the host vehicle,
(Matsumoto – [0018] “In the aspect of the disclosure, the at least one electronic control unit may be configured to acquire an ON signal of a direction indicator mounted in the vehicle, as the lane change information.”)
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Tsuji teaches:
a position at which the blinker lever is movable includes a neutral position,
(Tsuji – [0028] “Positions to which the turn signal lever 200 can be moved include a neutral position 201, middle positions 202R and 202L, and end positions 203R and 203L. The neutral position 201 is a position where the turn signal lever 200 is placed when the driver is not instructing the vehicle 1.”)
a first position that is located in each of two directions different from each other with respect to the neutral position, and returns to the neutral position when the driver does not apply an operation force to the blinker lever, and
(Tsuji – [0029] “If there is no operation force from the driver when the turn signal lever 200 is at one of the middle positions 202R and 202L, the turn signal lever 200 will be returned to the neutral position 201 by a physical biasing mechanism. Each of the middle positions 202R and 202L can be called a half position.”)
a second position that is located in each of two directions with respect to the neutral position, has an amount of movement from the neutral position greater than that of the first position, and is capable of being maintained when the driver does not apply an operation force to the blinker lever, and
(Tsuji – [0030] “The end position 203R is a position in the clockwise direction 204R with respect to the neutral position 201. The end position 203L is a position in the counterclockwise direction 204L with respect to the neutral position 201. If there is no operation force from the driver when the turn signal lever 200 is at one of the end positions 203R and 203L, the turn signal lever 200 can be maintained at the position by a physical lock mechanism.”)
the predetermined operation is an operation of maintaining the blinker lever at the first position.
(Tsuji – [0033] “As will be described more specifically hereinafter, the driver will operate the turn signal lever 200 to the middle position 202R in a case in which he/she wants make a lane change to an adjacent lane on the right side, and the driver will operate the turn signal lever 200 to the middle position 202L in a case in which he/she wants to make a lane change to an adjacent lane on the left side.”)
Tsuji is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring a lane change request from a driver. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Tsuji to include a turn signal lever with neutral, middle, and end positions so it will be easier for the driver to grasp the timing of the lane change operation and monitor the periphery and intervene when necessary (Tsuji, para. [0079]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20170183013 A1) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 20210276561 A1) and in further view of Fujiki et al. (US 20170203764 A1).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Fujiki teaches:
wherein when the lane change is being executed and the inter-vehicle distance is equal to or less than a threshold value before the host vehicle reaches a division line configured to divide the host lane and the adjacent lane, the hardware processor stops the lane change.
(Fujiki – [0008] “The merging assistance device further includes a distance-A acquisition unit, an own-vehicle speed acquisition unit, a traveling-distance-B calculator, and a stop controller. The distance-A acquisition unit acquires a distance A from the own vehicle to a reference position in the first lane. The own-vehicle speed acquisition unit acquires speed of the own vehicle. The traveling-distance-B calculator calculates a traveling distance B required for the own vehicle to stop under a condition where the own vehicle traveling at the speed acquired by the own-vehicle speed acquisition unit starts to slow down at predetermined deceleration. The stop controller stops an operation of assisting in merging, on condition that a value obtained by subtracting the distance B from the distance A is smaller than a predetermined threshold value during a period from a start time of acceleration controlled by the accelerator to a start time of changing a travel lane controlled by the lane-change controller.”)
Fujiki is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of controlling a lane change for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Matsumoto and Hayakawa with Fujiki to include stopping the lane change when the distance is smaller than a threshold in order to stop assistance in merging before the own vehicle gets excessively close to a reference point and as a result enhancing the safety of the own vehicle (Fujiki, para. [0009]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Ji et al. (US 20180251129 A1) discloses a controller may calculate the relative distance between the vehicle and the target vehicle when the vehicle completes the lane change to the target lane based on the relative speed of the vehicle and the target vehicle and the determined acceleration of the vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights