DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/02/2024 and 05/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites "the third speed and acceleration fall within a predetermined specified values." This phrase contains a grammatical error since it mixes a singular article "a" with a plural noun "values." Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is overly long (exceeds 150 words) and not written as a concise summary of the invention. 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 Interpretation
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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: "first target speed and acceleration calculator"; "second target speed and acceleration calculator"; and "third target speed and acceleration calculator" in claim 1; “third target speed and acceleration calculator” in claim 3; “second target speed and acceleration calculator” in claim 5; “third target speed and acceleration calculator” in claim 6; and “third target speed and acceleration calculator” in claim 7.
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, 4 and 6 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.
Claim 2 recites: “the other factor includes a moving object, obstacle, signal, light…” It is unclear that, if the other factor is the moving object, obstacle, etc. that the speed and acceleration plan generated in claim 1 which is generated for an interval until the host vehicle reaches the other factor encompasses. When the host vehicle reaches the other factor (i.e., moving object, obstacle, etc.) this implies that the host vehicle collides with the moving object, obstacle, etc. Further, the specification does not clarify what is meant by the host vehicle reaches the other factor.
Claim 4 recites: “the specified values are set on the basis of… an acceptable physical quantity.” It is unclear what this phrase is referring to. An acceptable physical quantity of what? An acceptable physical quantity of speed and acceleration? What are the requirements necessary to render the physical quantity as “acceptable”? It is unclear and the specification merely points to FIG.’s 6A-6D as examples of a physical quantity rather than an “acceptable physical quantity.” As best understood by the examiner, this limitation is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean a speed and/or acceleration which is less likely to cause discomfort to a driver during traveling.
Claim 6 is not clear in defining that “the third target speed and acceleration calculator calculates the third target speed and acceleration by adding the second target acceleration to the first target acceleration so that the second target acceleration is equal to or less than a predetermined value.” In particular, calculating the third target speed and acceleration by adding the second target acceleration to the first target acceleration” appears to have no impact on a value of the second target acceleration, but only on the third target acceleration. Therefore, a result that the “second target acceleration is equal to or less than a predetermined value” cannot be obtained accordingly. In this respect, it is pointed to [0046], including the same error, but also referring to the “absolute value of the acceleration peak in the section U” as being larger in FIG. 6B(d) than in FIG. 6A(d) within the specified value range.
Further, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of the limitation “a predefined value”. Since according to the description, the only predefined value disclosed is zero. It appears that the predefined value being zero is essential for solving the problem of improving the ride quality and comfort for the occupants (see FIG. 6B, FIG. 8B, [0047] and [0056]). The examiner is interpreting claim 6, as best understood in light of the specification and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, to mean a control method wherein, when the second target speed and acceleration are predicted to occur and the first target speed is greater than the second target speed, calculating the third target speed and acceleration by adjusting the first target acceleration to match the second target acceleration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle control device. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle motion control device comprising:
a first target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates first target speed and acceleration on a basis of a travel route that a host vehicle is traveling on, including a bend [mental process/ step];
a second target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates second target speed and acceleration on the basis of a factor other than a factor causing the travel route to bend [mental process/ step]; and
a third target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates third target speed and acceleration that are command values when the host vehicle is traveling, wherein the third target speed and acceleration calculator generates, on the basis of the first target speed and acceleration and the second target speed and acceleration, a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches the other factor, or a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches a predetermined position determined on the basis of the other factor [mental process/ step], and
changes a method for calculating the third target speed and acceleration on the basis of an evaluation result of the speed and acceleration plan [mental process/ step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, calculating a first, second and third target speed and acceleration in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and performing mathematical calculations/estimations which can be done in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A vehicle motion control device [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] comprising:
a first target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates first target speed and acceleration on a basis of a travel route that a host vehicle is traveling on, including a bend [mental process/ step];
a second target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates second target speed and acceleration on the basis of a factor other than a factor causing the travel route to bend [mental process/ step]; and
a third target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates third target speed and acceleration that are command values when the host vehicle is traveling, wherein the third target speed and acceleration calculator generates, on the basis of the first target speed and acceleration and the second target speed and acceleration, a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches the other factor, or a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches a predetermined position determined on the basis of the other factor [mental process/ step], and
changes a method for calculating the third target speed and acceleration on the basis of an evaluation result of the speed and acceleration plan [mental process/ step].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The “vehicle motion control device,” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle control device to perform the calculating steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9, which recites substantially similar language as claim 1, is also not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the specification recites standard sensors and computer systems which are well-known in the art of vehicle controls. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. "Goto" (US 2021/0188262 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches
A vehicle motion control device see at least FIG. 1A; engine control 31, brake control 32, and steering control 33 comprising:
a first target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates first target speed and acceleration on a basis of a travel route that a host vehicle is traveling on, including a bend see at least FIG. 3 and [0082]-[0087] where the ECU calculates a target speed V1_k at each of the target positions P1_k of the first traveling course R1 which is set to a setup vehicle speed (constant speed) by the driver and the ECU is further configured to correct the target speed so as to allow the vehicle speed to come close to the setup vehicle speed (in other words, the ECU calculates a necessary acceleration/deceleration to match the current vehicle speed with the setup vehicle speed). Also see at least FIG. 8 where an “acceleration target” is calculated for each corrected traveling course;
a second target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates second target speed and acceleration on the basis of a factor other than a factor causing the travel route to bend see at least FIG. 4 and [0088]-[0089] the target traveling course calculation part 10c calculates the position and speed of the preceding vehicle 3 on the lane on which the vehicle 1 is traveling to allow the vehicle 1 to follow a traveling trajectory (target positions P2_k and target speeds V2_k) of the preceding vehicle 3 in order to maintain a desired inter-vehicle distance. Also see at least FIG. 8 where an “acceleration target” is calculated for each corrected traveling course; and
a third target speed and acceleration calculator that calculates third target speed and acceleration that are command values when the host vehicle is traveling see at least [0073]-[0074] where, during an automatic speed control mode, the speed of the vehicle 1 is controlled to maintain a constant speed (i.e., first target speed and acceleration) set by the driver. When the vehicle 1 catches up to a preceding vehicle, the speed control is performed such that the vehicle 1 follows the preceding vehicle while maintaining an inter-vehicle distance appropriate to a follow-up vehicle speed (i.e., second target speed and acceleration), and then when the preceding vehicle disappears, the speed control is performed such that the follow-up vehicle speed is returned to the setup vehicle speed. Also see at least FIG. 8 where an “acceleration target” is calculated for each corrected traveling course,
wherein the third target speed and acceleration calculator generates, on the basis of the first target speed and acceleration and the second target speed and acceleration, a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches the other factor, or a speed and acceleration plan for an interval until the host vehicle reaches a predetermined position determined on the basis of the other factor see at least [0073]-[0074] where, during an automatic speed control mode, the speed of the vehicle 1 is controlled to maintain a constant speed (i.e., first target speed and acceleration) set by the driver. When the vehicle 1 catches up to a preceding vehicle, the speed control is performed such that the vehicle 1 follows the preceding vehicle while maintaining an inter-vehicle distance appropriate to a follow-up vehicle speed (i.e., second target speed and acceleration), and then when the preceding vehicle disappears (i.e., the host vehicle reaches a predetermined position determined on the basis of the other factor), the speed control is performed such that the follow-up vehicle speed is returned to the setup vehicle speed. Also see at least FIG. 8 where an “acceleration target” is calculated for each corrected traveling course, and
changes a method for calculating the third target speed and acceleration on the basis of an evaluation result of the speed and acceleration plan see at least [0112]-[0118] where when the vehicle 1 is traveling on the road, the surrounding object detection part 10b operates to detect an obstacle along the traveling direction of the vehicle 1. The corrected traveling course calculation part 10f sets a speed distribution zone 40 with respect to each of the one or more detected objects and then corrects a traveling course to prevent the vehicle speed of the vehicle 1 from exceeding the permissible upper limit Vim in the speed distribution zone 40. In other words, as the vehicle 1 approaches the parked vehicle 3, the target speed (i.e., third target speed) is reduced (which therefore implies a specific deceleration is necessary) to the permissible upper limit Vim or less. Also see at least FIG. 8 where an “acceleration target” is calculated for each corrected traveling course
The examiner notes that the teachings of Goto describe a single ECU 10 comprising a single CPU functioning as the corrected traveling course calculation part 10f (see at least FIG. 2 and [0056]) used for calculating corrected traveling courses (i.e., first, second, and third speeds and accelerations).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate CPU’s since it has been held that duplication of parts involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 2, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1, wherein the other factor includes a moving object, obstacle, signal, light, or communication in a direction of travel of the host vehicle or around the host vehicle see at least Goto FIG. 4, where the other factor includes a preceding vehicle (i.e., moving object) and also see at least FIG. 6, where the other factor may include a parked vehicle (i.e., obstacle).
Regarding claim 3, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1 see at least FIG. 17 and [0158] where, for example, in the preceding vehicle following control mode (TJA) the longitudinal acceleration of the own vehicle is restricted within +/-3 m/s^2. Further, see at least [0118] where the vehicle 1 begins traveling at 60 km/h until it enters the speed distribution zone wherein the permissible upper limit is 60 km/h and at this time it necessary to restrict the target speed to the permissible upper limit V or less (i.e., predetermined specified values of the third target speed).
Regarding claim 5, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1 communication with the other factor see at least [0089] where the preceding vehicle 3 is detected based on image data from the vehicle-mounted camera 21.
Regarding claim 7, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1 see at least [0152] where, when no preceding vehicle is determined, the target traveling course calculation part 10c operates to set the limiting condition on the basis of the target traveling course calculation part 10c (i.e., first traveling course R1 described in [0083]-[0087]. In other words, when no preceding vehicle is detected, then the vehicle 1 is controlled to travel at the speed and acceleration determined for traveling along the curved road.
Regarding claim 8, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1
when a flag output from a higher-level controller indicates that processing is permitted, the first to third target speeds and accelerations are calculated, and when the flag indicates that processing is prohibited, the first to third target speeds and accelerations are not calculated see at least FIG. 1 ECU 10 and [0077]-[0078] where, in the basic control mode, none of the three driving support modes (i.e., vehicle following mode, automatic speed control mode, and speed limiting mode) is selected and automatic steering control and speed control are not executed by the vehicle control device 100 (i.e., processing is prohibited and therefore target speeds and accelerations are not calculated). In the scenario, the engine control system 31, brake control system 32, and steering control system 33 are considered the vehicle motion control device(s) and the ECU 10 is considered the higher-level controller.
Claim 9 comprises substantially similar technical features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale used in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Mellinger III et al. "Mellinger" (US 2020/0189591 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Goto teaches
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 3, wherein the specified values are set on the basis of mass, size, and see at least [0131]-[0133] where a vehicle model is used to define physical movements of the vehicle 1 and is expressed as motion equations (1) and (2). The physical motions of the vehicle take into account a mass of the vehicle, a wheelbase of the vehicle 1, a distance between a center-of-gravity and a front axle of the vehicle, a distance between the center-of-gravity and a rear axle of the vehicle 1 (i.e., size of the vehicle), a lateral slip angle at the center-of-gravity (i.e., strong indicator of the state of the road the vehicle is traveling on). The vehicle model is defined in a way so that it is possible to derive a corrected traveling course (i.e., speed and acceleration) which is less likely to give a driver a feeling of strangeness and an optimal corrected traveling course which is the smallest in terms of the evaluation function J (acceptable physical quantity-see at least [0128]-[0129]) from among the plurality of corrected traveling course candidates.
Goto teaches all of the elements of the current invention except wherein the specified values are set on the basis of arrangement of vehicle occupants and cargo.
However, Mellinger teaches that it is known to provide the method wherein the specified values are set on the basis of arrangement of vehicle occupants and cargo. See at least [0040] and [0083] where the vehicle management system may generate a dynamic model based on current operation conditions of the vehicle. The dynamic model may be based on, for example, the distribution and mass of cargo and passengers within the vehicle, the location of the center of gravity of the vehicle, etc.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Goto to incorporate the teachings of Mellinger and provide the method wherein the specified values are set on the basis of arrangement of vehicle occupants and cargo. In doing so, this ensures safe operation of the vehicle because, by taking into account the distribution of vehicle occupants and cargo while driving on a curved road, this directly helps to determines safe cornering speeds for preventing vehicle rollover.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Ryu (KR20030016570 A).
Regarding claim 6, Goto does not teach
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1
Nevertheless, Ryu teaches that it is known to provide:
The vehicle motion control device according to claim 1 See at least para. 23-45 where a control method for a vehicle traveling on a curved road is provided in which the driver may select a significantly high speed (set speed) on a curved road and in the case the vehicle has missed the preceding vehicle, the driver accelerates to drive at the set speed and then decelerates when the preceding vehicle is detected again. Repeating this operation results in severe jerking. To remedy this, when the vehicle is on the curved road the set speed and the speed of the preceding vehicle are made equal.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Goto to incorporate the teachings of Ryu and provide the vehicle motion control device according to claim 1, wherein when the second target speed and acceleration are predicted to occur and the first target speed is greater than the second target speed, the third target speed and acceleration calculator calculates the third target speed and acceleration by adding the second target acceleration to the first target acceleration so that the second target acceleration is equal to or less than a predetermined value. In doing so, this prevents unnecessary acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle, thereby improving vehicle reliability (para. 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittany Renee Peko whose telephone number is (408)918-7506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30-6:30 PT.
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 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.
/B.R.P./08/06/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights