DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/24/2024, 5/14/2025, and 11/11/2025 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 9/29/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are independent.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Claim 9 states “A computer-readable non-temporary medium” and when the Office looks into the specification, it states “a storage device equipped with a non-transitory storage medium” thus will be interpreting the non-temporary as “non-transitory”.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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, (f) 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-7 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “recognizer”, “detector” and “determiner”, coupled with functional language “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-7 all recite a recognizer configured to recognize. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The driving support device 100 includes, for example, a recognizer 110, a contact possibility determiner 120, a driving state detector 130, a distracted driving determiner 140, a vehicle controller 150, an Hl\11 controller 160, and a storage 170. The recognizer 110, the contact possibility determiner 120, the driving state detector 130, the distracted driving determiner 140, the vehicle controller 150, and the HMI controller 160 are realized by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software). Some or all of these components may be realized by hardware (a circuit unit; including circuitry) such as large scale integration (LSI), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and a graphics processing unit (GPU), or may also be realized by software and hardware in cooperation. The program may be stored in advance in a storage device such as an HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 (a storage device equipped with a non-transitory storage medium), or may be stored in a removable storage medium such as a DVD or CD-ROM and installed in the HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 by attaching the storage medium (non-transitory storage medium) to a drive device. The distracted driving determiner 140 is an example of a "determiner" [Specification, ¶ 0035], thus will be interpreted as a generic computer.
Claims 1-7 all recite a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The driving support device 100 includes, for example, a recognizer 110, a contact possibility determiner 120, a driving state detector 130, a distracted driving determiner 140, a vehicle controller 150, an Hl\11 controller 160, and a storage 170. The recognizer 110, the contact possibility determiner 120, the driving state detector 130, the distracted driving determiner 140, the vehicle controller 150, and the HMI controller 160 are realized by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software). Some or all of these components may be realized by hardware (a circuit unit; including circuitry) such as large scale integration (LSI), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and a graphics processing unit (GPU), or may also be realized by software and hardware in cooperation. The program may be stored in advance in a storage device such as an HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 (a storage device equipped with a non-transitory storage medium), or may be stored in a removable storage medium such as a DVD or CD-ROM and installed in the HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 by attaching the storage medium (non-transitory storage medium) to a drive device. The distracted driving determiner 140 is an example of a "determiner" [Specification, ¶ 0035], thus will be interpreted as a generic computer.
Claims 1-7 all recite a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The driving support device 100 includes, for example, a recognizer 110, a contact possibility determiner 120, a driving state detector 130, a distracted driving determiner 140, a vehicle controller 150, an Hl\11 controller 160, and a storage 170. The recognizer 110, the contact possibility determiner 120, the driving state detector 130, the distracted driving determiner 140, the vehicle controller 150, and the HMI controller 160 are realized by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software). Some or all of these components may be realized by hardware (a circuit unit; including circuitry) such as large scale integration (LSI), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and a graphics processing unit (GPU), or may also be realized by software and hardware in cooperation. The program may be stored in advance in a storage device such as an HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 (a storage device equipped with a non-transitory storage medium), or may be stored in a removable storage medium such as a DVD or CD-ROM and installed in the HDD or flash memory of the driving support device 100 by attaching the storage medium (non-transitory storage medium) to a drive device. The distracted driving determiner 140 is an example of a "determiner" [Specification, ¶ 0035], thus will be interpreted as a generic computer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “for a predetermined period of time or more” yet later in the claim states “the predetermined period of time is set on the basis of a contact margin time between an obstacle near the vehicle and the vehicle, and a speed of the vehicle” thus it is unclear how the time is “predetermined” when it is clearly “determined” based on changing values. As currently presented it is unclear if the term “predetermined” has another meaning, is in error, or merely means determined at any time. When the Office looks into the specification, and based on the claims, it appears that the time value is ever changing based on the margin time, which is based on speed, thus the time is not “predetermined” rather “determined”. The Office will interpret this value as “based on contact margin time and speed”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 6 states “when there is no driving operation of the occupant” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear. In Claim 1, in which Claim 6 depends, distracted driving was determined to exist or not, but is this “no driving operation” the same as the “distracted driving”, or is this a new state that must be accounted for? As currently presented, Claim 6 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this “no driving operation state” as the same state of “distracted driving” in Claim 1. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to an process (method). Therefore, Claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus (medium). Therefore, Claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A vehicle control device comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a vehicle;
a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the vehicle,
and a determiner configured to determine distracted driving of the occupant on the basis of a result of detection by the driving state detector,
wherein the determiner determines that the occupant is performing distracted driving when a steering operation of the occupant is not detected by the driving state detector for a predetermined period of time or more,
and the predetermined period of time is set on the basis of a contact margin time between an obstacle near the vehicle and the vehicle, and a speed of the vehicle.
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. Specifically, the “recognizing, detecting, and determining” steps encompass a user to make gather information between about objects and a driver and determine a state. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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.
Regarding the additional limitations/interpretations of “a generic computer”, the examiner submits that these limitations/interpretations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “generic computer” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the recognizing, detecting, and determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the generic controller is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of determining a state is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only gathers data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that determining a state based on received data and using a generic computer, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the recognizing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). 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 2019 PEG, 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 the device or medium, the generic computer amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of recognizing, detecting and determinizing a state, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of recognizing the data and determining states are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-7 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 8, and 9.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the map. Even though Claim 7 does state some control features, there is no connection to when and how the control is based on the determination, thus Claim 7 is also rejected. Limitations such as positively reciting how the vehicle is controlled based on the determined stated, as suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Okamoto et al. (United States Patent Publication 2024/0127609).
With respect to Claim 1: Okamoto discloses “A vehicle control device comprising” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0047-0054 with Figure 5];
“a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a vehicle” [Okamoto, ¶ 0049 with Figure 5 (In step S320, the ECU 10 determines whether the object in front of the vehicle SV is the obstacle that may collide with the vehicle SV. If the object is the moving object, the ECU 10 determines that the moving object is the obstacle when the trajectory of the moving object intersects the trajectory of the vehicle SV.)];
“a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the vehicle” [Okamoto, ¶ 0032 and 0047-0054 with Figure 5];
“and a determiner configured to determine distracted driving of the occupant on the basis of a result of detection by the driving state detector” [Okamoto, ¶ 0032 and 0047-0054, with Figure 5 (The distraction state determination unit 120 determines that the driver is in the distraction state when the touch sensor 52 does not detect continuous gripping of the steering wheel by the driver, when the steering angle sensor 34 does not detect a steering operation of a predetermined amount or more by the driver, or when the driver does not detect another driving operation by the driver, during a period from when at least one of the ACC activation switch 61 and the LTA activation switch 65 is turned ON until a predetermined period of time elapses)];
“wherein the determiner determines that the occupant is performing distracted driving when a steering operation of the occupant is not detected by the driving state detector for a predetermined period of time or more” [Okamoto, ¶ 0032 and 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (The distraction state determination unit 120 determines that the driver is in the distraction state when the touch sensor 52 does not detect continuous gripping of the steering wheel by the driver, when the steering angle sensor 34 does not detect a steering operation of a predetermined amount or more by the driver, or when the driver does not detect another driving operation by the driver, during a period from when at least one of the ACC activation switch 61 and the LTA activation switch 65 is turned ON until a predetermined period of time elapses)];
“and the predetermined period of time is set on the basis of a contact margin time between an obstacle near the vehicle and the vehicle” [Okamoto, ¶ 0038 and 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (when the driver is in an abnormal state, it is desired to advance the operation of the deceleration control and the alarm by relaxing the execution conditions of the deceleration control and the alarm. When the driver state determination unit 130 determines that the driver is in the abnormal state, the PCS control unit 140 determines whether to execute the deceleration control or the alarm based on the second relaxation threshold time T2′ obtained by subtracting the predetermined quantity Td2 from the second threshold time T2(T2′=T2−Td2). Accordingly, when the abnormality is detected in the driver, the operation of the deceleration control and the alarm can be advanced, and thus the safety can be improved. The predetermined quantity Td2 may be a fixed value or may be a variable value. For example, the predetermined quantity Td2 may be increased as the vehicle speed V is increased)];
“and a speed of the vehicle” [Okamoto, ¶ 0038 and 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (the predetermined quantity Td2 may be increased as the vehicle speed V is increased)].
With respect to Claim 2: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined period of time is set to be longer as the contact margin time increases” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0038, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (the ECU 10 determines whether or not the vehicle SV is likely to collide with the obstacle based on the second relaxation threshold time T2′ obtained by subtracting the predetermined quantity Td2 from the second threshold time T1 (T2′=T2−Td2). Specifically, it is determined whether the condition in which the TTC is equal to or less than the collision determination threshold Tv continues for the second relaxation threshold T2′ or longer. If the determination is No, the ECU 10 returns this routine. On the other hand, if the determination is affirmative (Yes), the ECU 10 advances the process to step S380 to execute the alarm/deceleration control, and returns this routine)].
With respect to Claim 3: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined period of time is set to be longer as the contact margin time increases” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0037, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (The PCS control unit 140 determines that the vehicle SV is highly likely to collide with the obstacle when the state in which TTC is equal to or smaller than the predetermined collision determination threshold Tv continues for a predetermined second threshold T2 or longer) and (if the TTC is greater than the collision-determination-threshold Tv (No), the ECU 10 returns this routine)].
With respect to Claim 4: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined period of time is set to be longer as the speed of the vehicle decreases.” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0037, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (the ECU 10 calculates the TTC by dividing the distance L from the vehicle SV to the obstacle by the relative speed Vr (TTC=L/vr). Then, in step S340, the ECU 10 determines whether the TTC is less than or equal to the collision determination thresholds Tv. If the TTC is less than or equal to the collision-determination-threshold Tv (Yes), the ECU 10 advances the process to Step S350. On the other hand, if the TTC is greater than the collision-determination-threshold Tv (No), the ECU 10 returns this routine)].
With respect to Claim 5: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 4, wherein, when the speed of the vehicle is less than a predetermined speed, the predetermined period of time is set so that an amount of adjustment of time corresponding to the speed of the vehicle is suppressed” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0037, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (The PCS control unit 140 determines that the vehicle SV is highly likely to collide with the obstacle when the state in which TTC is equal to or smaller than the predetermined collision determination threshold Tv continues for a predetermined second threshold T2 or longer) and (if the TTC is greater than the collision-determination-threshold Tv (No), the ECU 10 returns this routine)].
With respect to Claim 6: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein, when there is no driving operation of the occupant, which is set on the basis of the contact margin time, the predetermined period of time is set by multiplying a reference time at which a vehicle can be determined to be able to travel without contacting the obstacle and a coefficient set on the basis of the speed of the vehicle” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0036, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (When the PCS control unit 140 determines that the object is an obstacle, the PCS control unit 140 calculates a predicted collision time (Time To Collision: TTC) until the vehicle SV collides with the obstacle based on the distance L from the vehicle SV to the obstacle and the relative velocity Vr of the vehicle SV with respect to the obstacle. TTC is an index indicating a possibility that the vehicle SV collides with an obstacle. TTC can be determined by dividing the distance L from own vehicle SV to the obstacle by the relative velocity Vr (TTC=L/Vr))].
With respect to Claim 7: Okamoto discloses “The vehicle control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a vehicle controller configured to control one or both of steering and acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle on the basis of the contact margin time” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0036, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (On the other hand, if the determination is affirmative (Yes), the ECU 10 advances the process to Step S380 to execute the alarm/deceleration control, and returns this routine)];
“and perform attention calling to the occupant when the determiner determines that the occupant is performing distracted driving” [Okamoto, Abstract, ¶ 0036, 0047-0054 with Figure 5 (On the other hand, if the determination is affirmative (Yes), the ECU 10 advances the process to Step S380 to execute the alarm/deceleration control, and returns this routine)].
With respect to Claim 8: all limitations have been examined with respect to the vehicle control device in Claims 1-7. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 8 can clearly perform on the vehicle control device in Claims 1-7. Therefore Claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 9: all limitations have been examined with respect to the vehicle control device in Claims 1-7. The non-transitory computer readable medium taught/disclosed in Claim 9 can clearly perform on the vehicle control device in Claims 1-7. Therefore Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c