DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/855,048, with an effective filing date of 10/8/2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 10/8/2024, claiming priority to JP2022-064866 and PCT/IB2023/053660, filed 4/11/2022 and 4/11/2023, respectively. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-15 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 2 has a grammatical error where A case should be corrected to [[A]] a case.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is using a specific section of the Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [0070], to clarify the interpretation of the terms "approaching tendency" (claim 1, line 18) and "separating tendency" (claim 1, line 20).The interpretation derived from paragraph [0070] is that the phrase "the longitudinal positional relationship between the ego vehicle 1 and the target vehicle 2b has the approaching tendency" means that the distance between the vehicles in the front-rear direction in a first operation mode is shorter than that in a second operation mode. Furthermore, this is because the "reference passing time gap" is set in the first operation mode, which necessarily results in a generally shorter distance between vehicles compared to the second operation mode, which is characterized by the separating tendency. Therefore, based on this disclosure, the first operation mode is interpreted as a mode where inter-vehicle distances are generally shorter than in the second operation mode.
__________________________________
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
saddled vehicle (claim 1 line 2) is defined by the Applicant within the disclosure in [0020] sentence (s.) 3, are motorcycles (a two-wheeled motor vehicle and a three-wheeled motor vehicle), an all-terrain vehicle, and a pedal-driven vehicle. The motorcycle and the all-terrain vehicle are vehicles, each of which has an engine or an electric motor as a drive source, for example. The two-wheeled motor vehicle or the three-wheeled motor vehicle means the so-called motorcycle, and the motorcycles include a bike, a scooter, an electric scooter, and the like
section (i.e., Execution and acquisition in claim 1 lines 3 and 11, respectively) are defined by the Applicant within the disclosure in [0034] where the controller as a whole or some of the sections of the controller may be a microcomputer, a microprocessor unit, or the like, may be one whose firmware and the like can be updated, or may be a program module or the like that is executed by a command from a CPU or the like
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
The term away in claims 2 (line 6) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term away is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations of the lateral direction and distance are rendered indefinite due to the use of the relative term because it is not clear how far away the target vehicle must be.
The term close in claims 2 (line 10) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term close is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation of the lateral direction and distance to the target vehicle is rendered indefinite due to the use of the relative term because it is not clear how close the target vehicle must be.
Claims 3-12 are rejected as they inherit the rejections of the claim from which they depend. However, claim 3 introduces a first threshold value and claim 4 correlates the away and close limitations with being either greater or less than, respectively, the first threshold value. Applicant can overcome the rejection by integrating these limitations into claim 2.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (US Pat.. No. 10,730,516 B2), hereinafter referred to as Ohashi.
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi discloses:
A controller (20) configured to maneuver an ego vehicle (1) that is a saddled vehicle (Fig. 1 below a cruise controller that is communicably coupled to the ECU to automatically control speed output and a breaking force controller which may necessarily be used to control speed as well and column (col) 1 line (ln) 14 where the invention is related to saddled vehicle), the controller (20) comprising:
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
535
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an execution section (21) that is configured to execute an automatic speed following operation by controlling a longitudinal positional relationship, the longitudinal positional relationship that is a positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and a target vehicle (2b) along a front-rear direction, the automatic speed following operation that is an operation in which a speed of the ego vehicle (1) is adjusted according to a speed of the target vehicle (2b) so that the ego vehicle (1) is maneuvered to follow the target vehicle (2b) automatically (col 2 ln 1-8 determines a forward intervehicular distance which is a distance from the own vehicle to the preceding vehicle in a traveling direction and a side intervehicular distance which is a distance from the own vehicle to the preceding vehicle in a vehicle width direction and performs the cruise control ( e.g., automatic travel control) in accordance with the forward intervehicular distance and the side intervehicular distance and col 15 ln 16-23 Then, the intervehicular distance judgement, driving power control (following), gear ratio control (following) and braking force control (following) are sequentially performed based on the set side intervehicular distance (Xl, X2) and forward intervehicular distance (Yl, Y2) and then it performs a feedback control based on the Target ratio), the controller (20) further comprising:
an acquisition section (22) that is configured to acquire a lateral positional relationship information as information about a positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along a lateral direction (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above), wherein when a group ride mode, in which a plurality of saddled vehicles including the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) travel in a group, is valid, the execution section (21), in the automatic speed following operation (col 1 ln 44-49 motorcycle group of friends travels in a same traffic lane, it is can be desirable to perform a cruise control suitable for travelling in two alternate rows of two longitudinal rows that can be shifted back and forth so that each vehicle does not have another vehicle on the side of the own vehicle), executes:
a first operation mode in which the longitudinal positional relationship is adjusted to have an approaching tendency (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above where a mode may be necessarily programmed to approach when distances become too large); and
a second operation mode in which the longitudinal positional relationship is adjusted to have a separating tendency (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above where a mode may be necessarily programmed to separate when distances become too small), and
the execution section (21) executes the first operation mode and the second operation mode based on the lateral positional relationship information (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above).
Claim 15 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 1, wherein the execution section (21), in the automatic speed following operation,:
executes the first operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional
relationship to have the approaching tendency when the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located away from each other along the lateral direction (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above where a mode may be necessarily programmed to approach when distances become too large); and
executes the second operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional relationship to have the separating tendency when the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located close to each other along the lateral direction (col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above where a mode may be necessarily programmed to separate when distances become too small).
Regarding claim 3, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 2, wherein the acquisition section (22) acquires, as the lateral positional relationship information, a lateral distance (D) between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the lateral direction, and
the execution section (21) executes the first operation mode and the second operation mode based on a comparison between the lateral distance (D) and a first threshold value (T1) (col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 where intervehicular distance Xa is taught, which is construed as a lateral threshold value).
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 3, wherein A case where the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located away from each other along the lateral direction is a case where the lateral distance (D) is larger than the first threshold value (T1), and
a case where the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located close to each other along the lateral direction is a case where the lateral distance (D) is smaller than the first threshold value (T1) (col 15 ln 16-23 as discussed above and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 where intervehicular distance Xa is taught, which is construed as a lateral threshold value).
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 4, wherein the execution section (21):
executes the first operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional relationship to have the approaching tendency when the lateral distance (D) is larger than the first threshold value (T1) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above); and
executes the second operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional relationship to have the separating tendency when the lateral distance (D) is smaller than the first threshold value (T1) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 10, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 2, wherein the acquisition section (22) acquires, as the lateral positional relationship information, a lateral distance (D) between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the lateral direction, and
the execution section (21) executes the first operation mode and the second operation mode based on a comparison between the lateral distance (D) and each of a third threshold value (T3) and a fourth threshold value (T4) that is smaller than the third threshold value (T3) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 11, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 10, wherein a case where the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located away from each other along the lateral direction is a case where the lateral distance (D) is larger than the third threshold value (T3), and
a case where the lateral positional relationship information indicates that the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) are located close to each other along the lateral direction is a case where the lateral distance (D) is smaller than the third threshold value (T3) and larger than the fourth threshold value (T4) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 12, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 11, wherein the execution section (21) executes the first operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional relationship to have the approaching tendency when the lateral distance (D) is larger than or equal to the third threshold value (T3), and
executes the second operation mode and adjusts the longitudinal positional relationship to have the separating tendency when the lateral distance (D) is smaller than the third threshold value (T3) and larger than the fourth threshold value (T4) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above).
Regarding claim 14, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 1, wherein the automatic speed following operation includes an operation to correct excess or deficiency of an accelerating/decelerating operation by a rider of the ego vehicle (1) so that the speed of the ego vehicle (1) is adjusted according to the speed of the target vehicle (2b) and that the ego vehicle (1) is maneuvered to follow the target vehicle (2b) automatically (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above and claim 1 regarding automatic cruise control to follow a target vehicle).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US Pat. No. 10,730,516 B2), hereinafter referred to as Ohashi, in view of Lin et al. (US Pat. No. 10,994,743 B1), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding claim 13, Ohashi discloses:
The controller according to claim 1, wherein the automatic speed following operation includes an operation in which the speed of the ego vehicle (1) is adjusted according to the speed of the target vehicle (2b) so that the ego vehicle (1) is maneuvered to follow the target vehicle (2b) automatically (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above and claim 1 regarding automatic cruise control to follow a target vehicle),
but Ohashi does not disclose:
maneuvered to follow the target vehicle (2b) automatically regardless of an accelerating/decelerating operation by a rider of the ego vehicle (1).
However, Lin teaches in col 13 ln 25-3 the in-vehicle controller 110 determines that a vehicle control instruction that is sent by the user (the human driver) for controlling the direction, the speed, or braking of the vehicle is invalid, and instructs the execution unit (the direction execution unit 150 and the speed execution unit 160) to ignore a user-related operation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system/method of Ohashi, by incorporating the ignoring of driver input teachings of Lin, such that the combination is motivated to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lin Col 1 ln 32-35, this allows improved transportation security as automated driving can effectively make up for deficiencies of human drivers in judgments, reactions, and operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are 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:
There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. However, the prior art does not seem to disclose or render obvious the claim 6 limitation wherein the acquisition section (22) acquires, as the lateral positional relationship information, a first distance (d1) related to the ego vehicle (1) and a second distance (d2) related to the target vehicle (2b), and the execution section (21) executes the first operation mode and the second operation mode based on a comparison between a reference distance and the second threshold value (T2), where the reference distance is a distance that is calculated by adding up the first distance (d1) and the second distance (d2), in combination with the other elements required by the claim and the claims from which it depends.
Claims 7-9 depend on claim 6 and are hereby objected to for the same reasons as disclosed above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Ohmura et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0094829 A1) where a driving support control device 10 controls a vehicle 1 in accordance with one driving support mode selected by a driver, and configured to, in a preceding vehicle following mode or an automatic speed control mode as a given driving support mode, execute control of causing the vehicle 1 to travel at a target speed;
Foster et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0348227 A1) where an autonomous vehicle (AV) includes features that allows the AV to comply with applicable regulations and statues for performing safe driving operation
Eidehall et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0192710 A1) where a collision course prediction includes a host vehicle sensor system detecting information relating to a target object including a position and a velocity relative to the host vehicle;
Ohashi et al. (DE 112015003610 T5) where controlling the speed of the own vehicle so as to follow the preceding vehicle while keeping a pre-set inter-vehicle distance relative to the preceding vehicle characterized in that the speed control means is a front inter-vehicle distance, which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle in the direction of travel, and a lateral inter-vehicle distance, which is a distance relative to the preceding vehicle is in a vehicle width direction, receives and performs the cruise control according to the front inter-vehicle distance and the lateral inter-vehicle distance; and
Tange et al. (DE 10000748 A1) where an apparatus and a method for automatically controlling a vehicle speed of a vehicle, wherein a vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/KEITH A. VON VOLKENBURG/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665