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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to Claim 3, the examiner considered the paragraph of Claim 3 is unclear, especially “…a target position when an accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected is set on a host vehicle side with respect to a target position when the accelerator operation of the occupant is detected.” The examiner considered, Paragraph 71 of the Specification would the paragraph support the claimed language most.
Therefore, the examiner would suggest the Applicant to consider amend the claimed language based on the teachings of Specification, Paragraph 71 to reflect the intention of the claimed invention.
For examining purpose, the examiner would examine the claimed limitations based on the teaching of Specification, Paragraph 71.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (US2024/0140410 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Arai teaches a vehicle control device comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (Paragraph 66);
a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraphs 6, 116 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
a braking controller configured to perform at least deceleration control based on a target deceleration of the host vehicle when determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 126-129),
wherein the braking controller changes the target deceleration based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, the examiner considered the reference would teach when an acceleration operation is applied, the deceleration value would be changed).
Regarding to Claim 2, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein the target deceleration has a greater value when the accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected than when the accelerator operation is detected (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, the examiner considered when applying an acceleration operation, the deceleration value would be lower than a deceleration value when there is no acceleration operation applied).
Regarding to Claim 3, based on the examiner’s best understanding, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein the braking controller sets a target position where the host vehicle stops at the target deceleration in such a manner that a target position when an accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected is set on a host vehicle side with respect to a target position when the accelerator operation of the occupant is detected (based on the teachings of the Specification, Paragraph 71 of the claimed invention, the examiner considered Arai, Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, it would be known if the deceleration value/rate is lower, the stopping position will be ahead from a position when the deceleration value/rate is not lower).
Regarding to Claim 4, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein the target deceleration is set in such a manner that,
when the accelerator operation of the occupant is detected, a first target deceleration is set based on a first target position set behind the obstacle in a front-rear direction (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, the examiner considered the teachings would reflect the limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
when the accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected, a second target deceleration is set based on a second target position provided behind the first target position (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, it would be known if the deceleration value/rate is lower, the stopping position will be ahead from a position when the deceleration value/rate is not lower).
Regarding to Claim 5, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein the braking controller sets a deceleration state based on a contact margin value between the host vehicle and the obstacle,
the deceleration state includes a first deceleration state when the contact margin value is equal to or greater than a prescribed value (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 6, 126-129, based on the teachings, it would be known if the host vehicle is not within a contact margin, the deceleration would not be applied. The examiner considered no deceleration is the first deceleration state), and
a second deceleration state when the contact margin value is less than the prescribed value, in the first deceleration state (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 6, 126-129, when the host vehicle is within the contact margin, a deceleration would be applied, and the examiner considered this is a second deceleration state),
a first upper limit deceleration is set (the upper limit would be zero), and
in the second deceleration state, a second upper limit deceleration having a deceleration degree greater than the first upper limit deceleration is set (it would be known, if there is a deceleration applied, the degree would be greater than zero. Paragraphs 6, 126-129).
Regarding to Claim 6, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein, in the first deceleration state, the braking controller performs deceleration control at a first deceleration degree, and then, performs deceleration control at a second deceleration degree greater than the first deceleration degree (Paragraphs 6, 126-129, please see the rejection of Claim 5).
Regarding to Claim 7, Arai teaches the vehicle control device,
wherein the braking controller determines whether or not to execute deceleration control, on a condition of a speed of the host vehicle (Paragraph 81 would teaches the speed to would affect the position to start the deceleration under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
the condition of the speed is that the speed is set to be lower when the accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected than when the accelerator operation of the occupant is detected (Paragraphs 81 and applying to Paragraphs 6, 126-133 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 10, Arai teaches a vehicle control method comprising:
by a computer (Paragraph 23),
recognizing a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (Paragraph 66);
detecting a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraphs 6, 116 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
performing at least deceleration control based on a target deceleration of the host vehicle when determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 126-129); and
changing the target deceleration based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, the examiner considered the reference would teach when an acceleration operation is applied, the deceleration value would be changed).
Regarding to Claim 11, Arai teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to:
recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (Paragraph 66);
detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraphs 6, 116 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
perform at least deceleration control based on a target deceleration of the host vehicle when determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 126-129); and
change the target deceleration based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected (Fig. 5, Paragraph 130-133, and based on the teachings of Paragraphs 61 and 116, the examiner considered the reference would teach when an acceleration operation is applied, the deceleration value would be changed).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US2024/0140410 A1) in view of Adiththan (US2025/0065896 A1).
Regarding to Claim 8, Arai fails to explicitly disclose, but Adiththan teaches a vehicle control device,
wherein the braking controller performs steering of the host vehicle or the deceleration control when distracted driving of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector [Adiththan teaches a system would apply a deceleration operation when detecting a driver is distracted to prevent collision (Adiththan, Paragraph 2).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai to incorporate the teachings of Adiththan to control a deceleration operation when detecting a driver is distracted in order to prevent collision (Adiththan, Paragraph 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (US2024/0140410 A1) in view of Hashimoto (US2024/0182022 A1).
Regarding to Claim 8, Arai fails to explicitly disclose, but Hashimoto teaches a vehicle control device, further comprising:
a steering controller configured to perform steering control for moving the host vehicle to a center of a traveling lane in the first deceleration state [Hashimoto teaches a steering control to steer a host vehicle to the center of the lane to eliminate the risk of deviation from the lane (Hashimoto, Paragraph 45).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arai to incorporate the teachings of Hashimoto to control a steering system of a vehicle to steer the vehicle to the center of the lane in order to eliminate the risk of deviation from the lane (Hashimoto, Paragraph 45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747