DETAILED ACTION
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 Ike (US2021/0061268 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Ike teaches a vehicle control device comprising:
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (Paragraph 65);
a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraph 65); and
a braking controller configured to:
set a target deceleration of the host vehicle based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation),
perform at least deceleration control based on the target deceleration set (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 2, Ike 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. 3, Steps S12 and S14, when entering S12, there will be a deceleration, and when entering S14, the deceleration value would be zero, which would reflect the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 3, Ike teaches the vehicle control device, wherein the braking controller is further configured to set 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 closer to the host vehicle than a target position when the accelerator operation of the occupant is detected (Fig. 3, Steps S12 and S14, when entering S12, there will be a deceleration value, and when entering S14, the deceleration value would be zero. Based on the operation, it would be known the target position in S12 would be closer to the host vehicle than when entering S14 since the deceleration value of S12 and S14 are different).
Regarding to Claim 4, Ike 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, the target deceleration is set based on a first target position set behind the obstacle in a front-rear direction (Fig. 3, Steps S12 and S14, Paragraphs 94-99, the operation which would also be applied to the embodiment of Fig. 3, since there is a deceleration value difference, the teachings would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
when the accelerator operation of the occupant is not detected, the target deceleration is set based on a second target position provided behind the first target position (Fig. 3, Steps S12 and S14, Paragraphs 94-99, the operation which would also be applied to the embodiment of Fig. 3, since there is a deceleration value difference, the teachings would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 5, Ike teaches the vehicle control device, wherein the braking controller is further configured to set a deceleration state based on a contact margin value between the host vehicle and the obstacle, wherein the deceleration state comprises a first deceleration state, when the contact margin value is equal to or greater than a prescribed value, and a second deceleration state when the contact margin value is less than the prescribed value (Fig. 3, Step S11, Paragraphs 94-96 and applied to Fig. 3, the examiner considered the step would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein:
in the first deceleration state, a first upper limit deceleration is set (Fig. 3, Steps S11-S14, the deceleration 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 (Fig. 3, Steps S11-S12, the deceleration upper limit would be larger than zero).
Regarding to Claim 6, Ike teaches the vehicle control device, wherein, the braking controller is further configured to, in the first deceleration state, perform deceleration control at a first deceleration degree (Fig. 3, Steps S11-S14, the deceleration upper limit would be zero), and then, perform deceleration control at a second deceleration degree, grater than the first deceleration degree (Fig. 3, Steps S11-S12, the deceleration upper limit would be larger than zero).
Regarding to Claim 7, Ike teaches the vehicle control device, wherein the braking controller is further configured to determine whether or not to execute deceleration control, on a condition of a speed of the host vehicle, and wherein the condition of the speed comprises the speed being 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 107-109).
Regarding to Claim 10, Ike teaches a vehicle control method comprising, by a computer:
recognizing a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (Paragraph 65);
detecting a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraph 65);
setting a target deceleration of the host vehicle based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected when determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
performing at least deceleration control based on the target deceleration set (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 11, Ike 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 65);
detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle (Paragraph 65);
set a target deceleration of the host vehicle based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected when determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
perform at least deceleration control based on the target deceleration set (Fig. 3, Paragraphs 90-105, 106-110, the examiner considered Steps S13, S14 and S12 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
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 Ike (US2021/0061268 A1) in view of Adiththan (US2025/0065896 A1).
Regarding to Claim 8, Ike 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 Ike 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 Ike (US2021/0061268 A1) in view of Hashimoto (US2024/0182022 A1).
Regarding to Claim 8, Ike 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 Ike 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 10, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights