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 .
Claim Interpretation
In re claims 12, 18, 20-21 and 28, claims 12, 18, 20-21 and 28 all recite the term “dead time”. The specification does not provide a specific definition for the term “dead time”. This being the case, the term “dead time” is being interpreted to basically mean a delay, between an action and a result of that reaction, such as a delay between when a controller outputs a signal and when that same signal causes an effect, such as an output by an actuator, motor, led, etc.
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 11-30 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.
In re claims 11, 19 and 27, claims 11, 19 and 27 all recite the limitation “a standard braking maneuver within preset safety limits or an emergency-braking maneuver”. It is unclear in the claim exactly what constitutes a standard braking maneuver within preset safety limits or exactly what constitutes an emergency-braking maneuver. Claims 12-18, 20-26 and 28-30 are further rejected for depending upon a rejected claim.
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 11-13, 18-21, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seki et al. (U.S. 6131063).
In re claim 11, Seki teaches a method for automatic braking control of a motor vehicle (The present invention relates to a vehicle brake device, and more particularly to the technique for a brake assist control and an automatic brake control in case of emergency of the vehicle; [Col. 1, ln 5-8]), comprising:
ascertaining whether a braking maneuver to be carried out is a standard braking maneuver within preset safety limits or an emergency-braking maneuver (As seen from the foregoing description, a vehicle brake device constructed according to the present invention comprises: braking-operation detecting means for detecting an amount of the braking operation given by a driver; driver's condition detecting means for detecting driving conditions of the driver; emergency judging means for judging whether the vehicle is in emergency or not on the basis of the driving conditions detected by the driver's condition detecting means; and braking-force control means for control a braking force of the vehicle in accordance with the result of the judgement by the emergency judging means; [Col. 10, ln 41-51]); and
based on ascertaining that the braking maneuver is the emergency-braking maneuver, executing the braking maneuver by controlling an actuation of a braking device of the motor vehicle using a first control characteristic preset associated with one or more emergency- braking maneuvers (when a dangerous level indicates a danger of vehicle collision, the braking force control means performs an automatic brake control mode till the driver actuates the brakes, and when the driver actuates the brakes, the braking force control means controls the braking force in accordance with the dangerous level and the amount of braking operation; [Col. 3, ln 12-20]; see also fig. 4-6 and [Col. 4, ln 4-22) that differs from a second control characteristic preset associated with one or more standard braking maneuvers (fig. 4; A relationship of an urgency level of the braking operation to the elapsing time is shown in FIG. 4. As shown, the urgency of the braking operation is ranked in five levels, 0 to 5...Level 0 indicates that the braking operation is normal; [Col. 4, ln 66-Col. 5, ln 9]).
In re claim 12, Seki teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a dead time of a controlled system on a braking torque (as indicated in fig. 8, and fig 11-12; the urgency level can be determined by using a time elapsing from an instant that the driver perceives a collision danger till the vehicle brake device actually starts the brake control; [Col. 11, ln 20-28]; Here, the delay (or time elapsed) between the instant that the driver perceives a collision danger till vehicle brake device actually starts the brake control, is considered to be a dead time of the automatic brake control system on application of the brakes to produce braking torque).
In re claim 13, Seki teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein
the dependency provides for a shorter dead time of the controlled system for a numerically greater braking torque (as indicated in fig. 8 and fig. 11; A relationship of an urgency level of the braking operation to the elapsing time in the second embodiment is shown in FIG. 8. When the monitoring/detecting result derived from the surrounding-condition monitoring/detecting circuit 9 shows that a distance from the vehicle to an obstacle which may collide with the vehicle is shorter than a preset distance, an urgency level is kept at level 5 with respect to the elapsing time, as indicated by a rectilinear, one-dot chain line A in FIG. 8 When the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle is longer than a first preset distance but is shorter than a second preset distance, the urgency level is varied as indicated by a dotted line B. As shown, the urgency level is kept at level 5 for the elapsing time from 0 to 2 seconds; it is degraded from level 5 to level 1 one by one every two seconds for the elapsing time from 2 to 10 seconds; and the urgency level is kept at level 0 for the elapsing time from 10 seconds or longer. The preset distance may be variably set depending on a relative speed of the vehicle to the obstacle into consideration. [Col. 7, ln 3-21]; Here, a relationship between a shorter dead/elapsed/delay time, an increase in braking force and the urgency level).
In re claim 18, Seki teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein
a preset fixed value (as indicated in fig. 8)
for a dead time of a controlled system (as indicated in fig. 8; [Col. 7, ln 3-21]; and explained above in claim 13) and/or
for a time constant of a controller
is used for the standard braking maneuver (as explained above in claim 11, urgency level 0 indicates normal operation).
In re claim 19, see claim 11 above.
In re claim 20, see claims 12 and 19 above.
In re claim 21, see claims 13 and 20 above.
In re claim 26, see claims 18 and 19 above.
In re claim 27, Seki teaches a motor vehicle (The present invention relates to a vehicle brake device, and more particularly to the technique for a brake assist control and an automatic brake control in case of emergency of the vehicle; [Col. 1, ln 5-8]) comprising:
a braking device (fig. 1; FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an arrangement of a vehicle brake device, which is a first embodiment of the present invention; [Col. 4, ln 4-22]) configured to be actuated automatically; and
a control device (as shown in fig. 1, braking operation detection circuit 2 and braking condition determining circuit 6 are coupled to the braking force control circuit 7; [Col. 4, ln 4-22]) coupled to the braking device,
the control device configured to:
ascertain whether a braking maneuver to be carried out is a standard braking maneuver within preset safety limits or an emergency-braking maneuver (As seen from the foregoing description, a vehicle brake device constructed according to the present invention comprises: braking-operation detecting means for detecting an amount of the braking operation given by a driver; driver's condition detecting means for detecting driving conditions of the driver; emergency judging means for judging whether the vehicle is in emergency or not on the basis of the driving conditions detected by the driver's condition detecting means; and braking-force control means for control a braking force of the vehicle in accordance with the result of the judgement by the emergency judging means; [Col. 10, ln 41-51]); and
based on ascertaining that the braking maneuver is the emergency-braking maneuver, execute the braking maneuver by controlling an actuation of the braking device of the motor vehicle using a first control characteristic preset associated with one or more emergency-braking maneuvers that differs from a second control characteristic preset associated with one or more standard braking maneuvers (when a dangerous level indicates a danger of vehicle collision, the braking force control means performs an automatic brake control mode till the driver actuates the brakes, and when the driver actuates the brakes, the braking force control means controls the braking force in accordance with the dangerous level and the amount of braking operation; [Col. 3, ln 12-20]; see also fig. 4-6 and [Col. 4, ln 4-22) that differs from a second control characteristic preset associated with one or more standard braking maneuvers (fig. 4; A relationship of an urgency level of the braking operation to the elapsing time is shown in FIG. 4. As shown, the urgency of the braking operation is ranked in five levels, 0 to 5...Level 0 indicates that the braking operation is normal; [Col. 4, ln 66-Col. 5, ln 9]).
In re claim 28, Seki teaches the control device according to claim 27, wherein
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a dead time of a controlled system on a braking torque (as indicated in fig. 8, and fig 11-12; the urgency level can be determined by using a time elapsing from an instant that the driver perceives a collision danger till the vehicle brake device actually starts the brake control; [Col. 11, ln 20-28]; Here, the delay (or time elapsed) between the instant that the driver perceives a collision danger till vehicle brake device actually starts the brake control, is considered to be a dead time of the automatic brake control system on application of the brakes to produce braking torque), and wherein
the dependency provides for a shorter dead time of the controlled system for a numerically greater braking torque (as indicated in fig. 8 and fig. 11; A relationship of an urgency level of the braking operation to the elapsing time in the second embodiment is shown in FIG. 8. When the monitoring/detecting result derived from the surrounding-condition monitoring/detecting circuit 9 shows that a distance from the vehicle to an obstacle which may collide with the vehicle is shorter than a preset distance, an urgency level is kept at level 5 with respect to the elapsing time, as indicated by a rectilinear, one-dot chain line A in FIG. 8 When the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle is longer than a first preset distance but is shorter than a second preset distance, the urgency level is varied as indicated by a dotted line B. As shown, the urgency level is kept at level 5 for the elapsing time from 0 to 2 seconds; it is degraded from level 5 to level 1 one by one every two seconds for the elapsing time from 2 to 10 seconds; and the urgency level is kept at level 0 for the elapsing time from 10 seconds or longer. The preset distance may be variably set depending on a relative speed of the vehicle to the obstacle into consideration. [Col. 7, ln 3-21]; Here, a relationship between a shorter dead/elapsed/delay time, an increase in braking force and the urgency level).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
NOTE: PE2E will not properly display Belman Efim et al. (WO 2022090800) and the examiner would like to thank the applicant for providing a copy of the reference, since it is unavailable using official USPTO patent search tools (PE2E).
Claims 14-17, 22-25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. 6131063) in view of Belman Efim et al. (WO 2022090800).
In re claim 14, Seki teaches the method according to claim 11, but lacks wherein
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a time constant of a controller on a desired deceleration.
Belman teaches an analogous vehicle system and further teaches
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a time constant of a controller on a desired deceleration (a simulated host speed for host vehicle 5410 and a braking rate at which host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (which may be a maximum braking rate capability or another assumed braking rate). This may also assume a delay period before host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (to account for a delay associated with sensor 5420 or time to process an output signal of sensor 5420). In some embodiments, host vehicle 5410 may further be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period. For example, host vehicle 5410 may be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period at a maximum acceleration rate (which may be an assumed maximum acceleration rate of host vehicle 5410); [0863]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seki, to incorporate a delay period before host vehicle applies its brake, as clearly suggested and taught by Belman, such that the at least one processing device may determine whether one or more regions exist within the geographic region where outputs of the one or more sensors are insufficient for ensuring that each navigational action implemented by the navigation system of the host vehicle will not result in an accident for which the host vehicle is at fault
In re claim 15, Seki and Belman teach the method according to claim 14, and Belman further teaches wherein
the dependency provides for a smaller time constant of the controller for a numerically greater desired deceleration (a simulated host speed for host vehicle 5410 and a braking rate at which host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (which may be a maximum braking rate capability or another assumed braking rate). This may also assume a delay period before host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (to account for a delay associated with sensor 5420 or time to process an output signal of sensor 5420). In some embodiments, host vehicle 5410 may further be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period. For example, host vehicle 5410 may be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period at a maximum acceleration rate (which may be an assumed maximum acceleration rate of host vehicle 5410); [0863]).
In re claim 16, Seki teaches the method according to claim 11, but lacks wherein
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a time constant of a controller on a gradient of a desired deceleration.
Belman teaches an analogous vehicle system and further teaches
the first control characteristic preset associated with the one or more emergency-braking maneuvers determines a dependency of a time constant of a controller on a gradient of a desired deceleration (a simulated host speed for host vehicle 5410 and a braking rate at which host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (which may be a maximum braking rate capability or another assumed braking rate). This may also assume a delay period before host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (to account for a delay associated with sensor 5420 or time to process an output signal of sensor 5420). In some embodiments, host vehicle 5410 may further be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period. For example, host vehicle 5410 may be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period at a maximum acceleration rate (which may be an assumed maximum acceleration rate of host vehicle 5410); [0863]).
Motivation to combine is given above.
In re claim 17, Seki and Belman teach the method according to claim 16, and Belman further teaches wherein
the dependency provides for a smaller time constant of the controller for a numerically larger gradient of the desired deceleration (a simulated host speed for host vehicle 5410 and a braking rate at which host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (which may be a maximum braking rate capability or another assumed braking rate). This may also assume a delay period before host vehicle 5410 applies its brake (to account for a delay associated with sensor 5420 or time to process an output signal of sensor 5420). In some embodiments, host vehicle 5410 may further be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period. For example, host vehicle 5410 may be assumed to continue to accelerate during this delay period at a maximum acceleration rate (which may be an assumed maximum acceleration rate of host vehicle 5410); [0863]).
In re claim 22, see claims 14 and 19 above.
In re claim 23, see claims 15 and 22 above.
In re claim 24, see claims 16 and 19 above.
In re claim 25, see claims 17 and 24 above.
In re claim 29, see claims 12, 15 and 19 above.
In re claim 30, see claims 16-17 and 19 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights