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 .
Clams 1 – 9 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2020/0086856).
Regarding Claim 1:
Park et al. teaches a vehicle control device comprising: a recognizer (7) that recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (100); a driving state detector (via sensors 10) that detects a driving state including steering (steering angular velocity, S51 to S54, Fig 5) of an occupant of the host vehicle; a driving controller (50) that executes steering control for supporting steering of the occupant when there is a probability (via S40, Fig 1A) that the host vehicle will come into contact with a surrounding obstacle (paragraph 0043) on the basis of recognition results of the recognizer and steering of the occupant equal to or larger than a predetermined value has been detected by the driving state detector (S51, paragraph 0057, where steering angular value “e” equals 50 deg/s); and a limiter (20) that adjusts a limit value related to steering of the occupant in accordance with a steering state of the occupant (Figs 1A, 3, 5 – 7, where the value of the angular velocity changes from the values labeled “e” to “g” and then to “k”, see further paragraphs 0054, 0057, 0067, and 0071).
Regarding Claim 2:
Park et al. teaches the limit value includes a first upper limit value (“e” described in paragraph 0057) with respect to steering when the steering control is not being performed, and a second upper limit value (“g” described in paragraph 0067) with respect to steering during the steering control, and the driving controller executes steering control such that a steering state during the steering control does not exceed the second upper limit value (via S70, paragraphs 0043 and 0060).
Regarding Claim 3:
Park et al. teaches the limiter sets the second upper limit value within a predetermined range from a largest value of a steering state of the occupant detected by the driving state detector (via S132).
Regarding Claim 4:
Park et al. teaches the limiter adjusts the second upper limit value until a predetermined time elapses after the steering control has been executed (via S132, and see paragraphs 0054, 0063, 0071 which describes the change in threshold based on driver’s input).
Regarding Claim 5:
Park et al. teaches the limiter causes the adjusted second upper limit value to decrement so as to become close to the first upper limit value with an elapse of time (the decrease of angular speed from g to k, paragraphs 0060, 0067, 0071).
Regarding Claim 6:
Park et al. teaches the predetermined time is a time shorter than a time when the steering control is predicted to be executed (via S135, paragraphs 0071 – 0072).
Regarding Claim 7:
Park et al. teaches the limiter adjusts the second upper limit value in accordance with a steering state of the occupant when the steering state of the occupant detected by the driving state detector exceeds the first upper limit value (via S71, S132).
Regarding Claim 8:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747