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 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 and 12-15 are currently pending. Claims 3-4, 7, and 11 have been canceled. Claims 6 and 8-9 still contain allowable subject matter but are objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim as discussed in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Claim Objection sections in Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, and subsequently withdraws the previous objections. However, upon further consideration, new objections have been noted below in the Drawings, Abstract and in the amended claim language.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing relative terminology in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 13, and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-15 as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (US Pat. No. 10,730,516 B2) [hereinafter referred to as Ohashi516], the Applicant has elected to amend claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12, and 15. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102(a)(1) is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Ohashi et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 106573620 B) [hereinafter referred to as Ohashi620] has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (see pp. 13-14) that Ohashi516 fails to disclose the executing a reference setting process in which a passing time gap between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) is set to a reference passing time gap to control the longitudinal positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) so that a distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction becomes a reference target distance. However, Ohashi620 teaches in pg.6 ¶15, a saddle-riding type vehicle keeps default vehicle headway relative to the front vehicles that it follows. Headway is understood to be the distance/time interval between two consecutive vehicles in a traffic stream, reflecting both safety and traffic flow efficiency. Furthermore, Fig. 4, as seen below within the rejection, shows the cruise control of saddle-riding type vehicle during driving status (adjusting of vehicle headway) time diagram.
Further regarding claim 1 the Applicant argues fails to disclose the executing a passing time gap adjusting process in which an adjusted passing time gap that is greater than the reference passing time gap is set to control the longitudinal positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) so that the distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction becomes an increased target distance which is greater than the reference target distance that is the distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction. However, as discussed in the previous action in col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 that a mode may be necessarily programmed to approach when distances become too large and to separate when distances become too small which is construed, when paired with the passing time gap (e.g., headway) teachings of Ohashi620, as executing a passing time gap adjustment is executed.
Therefore, the argument is moot.
In regards to independent claim 15, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, this claim recites similar features to claim 1 and its rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above
Drawings
Drawings 4 and 9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Fig. 4 details regarding the identifications (e.g., Fig.1 items 101-108 and 301-302), as described in the specification and (b) with regard to Figs. 9, details regarding the blocks contained therein (e.g., Fig.9 items 101-108 and 301-302), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified an informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
it contains phraseology that may be implied (e.g., line 1 “The present disclosure obtains…”);
the abstract exceeds one paragraph; and
the abstract exceeds 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 28 and claim 15 line 29 has a typographical error where direction, and should be corrected to direction[[,]]; and.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 12, and 14-15 are 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 Ohashi516, in view of Ohashi et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 106573620 B), hereinafter referred to as Ohashi620.
Regarding claim 1, Ohashi516 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) configured to:
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
535
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 inter-vehicular distance which is a distance from the own vehicle to the preceding vehicle in a traveling direction and a side inter-vehicular 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 inter-vehicular distance and the side inter-vehicular distance and col 15 ln 16-23 Then, the inter-vehicular distance judgement, driving power control (following), gear ratio control (following) and braking force control (following) are sequentially performed based on the set side inter-vehicular distance (X1, X2) and forward inter-vehicular distance (Y1, Y2) and then it performs a feedback control based on the Target ratio), the controller (20) further comprising:
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)
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 controller 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).
Although Ohashi516 discloses the executing a gap adjusting process in which an adjusted gap that is greater than the reference gap is set to control the longitudinal positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) so that the distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction becomes an increased target distance which is greater than the reference target distance that is the distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction as stated above in col 2 ln 1-8 and col 15 ln 16-23 where a mode may be necessarily programmed to approach when distances become too large and to separate when distances become too small, the reference does not explicitly disclose:
executing a reference setting process in which a passing time gap between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) is set to a reference passing time gap to control the longitudinal positional relationship between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) so that a distance between the ego vehicle (1) and the target vehicle (2b) along the front-rear direction becomes a reference target distance.
However, Ohashi620 teaches, in pg.6 ¶15, a saddle-riding type vehicle keeps default vehicle headway relative to the front vehicles that it follows. Headway is understood to be the distance/time interval between two consecutive vehicles in a traffic stream, reflecting both safety and traffic flow efficiency. Furthermore, Fig. 4 as seen below shows the cruise control of saddle-riding type vehicle during driving status (adjusting of vehicle headway) time diagram.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle controls and adaptive cruise control before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the saddled-vehicle control system of Ohashi516, by incorporating the headway teachings of Ohashi620, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved safety and traffic flow efficiency.
PNG
media_image2.png
989
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 Vehicle headway time diagram
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, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, 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)
wherein the controller 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 controller 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 inter-vehicular distance Xa is taught, which is construed as a lateral threshold value), and
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 inter-vehicular distance Xa is taught, which is construed as a lateral threshold value).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Applicant has elected to cancel the claims and combine the limitations with that of claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, discloses:
The controller according to claim 2, 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 7, Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and, subsequently, the claim is no longer under consideration.
Regarding claim 10, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, discloses:
The controller according to claim 2, wherein
the controller, 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 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 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above),
wherein the controller 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 (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above), 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),
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) (col 15 ln 16-23 and col 18 ln 18-20 and ln45-58 as discussed above), 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 11, the Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and aggregate the limitations with that of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, discloses:
The controller according to claim 10, 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) (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 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, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, 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 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 Ohashi516, in view of Ohashi et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 106573620 B), hereinafter referred to as Ohashi620, and Lin et al. (US Pat. No. 10,994,743 B1), hereinafter referred to as Lin.
Regarding claim 13, Ohashi516, as modified by Ohashi620, 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 and adaptive cruise control before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the saddled-vehicle control system of Ohashi516, as already modified by the headway teachings of Ohashi620, 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Nilsson et al. article “Correct-by-construction adaptive cruise control: Two approaches” which is directed toward a time gap mode where the headway is accounted for in the adjusting of the reference distance.
Conclusion
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 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
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights