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
Claims 1-6 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “wherein the braking controller stops the deceleration control when an accelerator operation of a prescribed value or more of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector” in claim 1 is unclear and implies that the operator sets the prescribed value.
The office assumes the prescribed value is a threshold set by braking controller and recommends rewriting the limitation to more clearly denote the desired implementation.
The ESPACENET translation of the parent application (JP2023169481) denotes a clearer reading of the claim’s intention and the office recommends rewriting the claim accordingly.
The use of the phrase “prescribed value” in claim 1-6 is confusing as the claimed language in claim 1 implies that the operator of the accelerator sets the prescribed value and claims 2-4 implies that the braking controller sets the prescribed value.
For clarity, the office recommends renaming the “prescribed value” to instead be a “predetermined value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of co-pending application 18/895,823. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application's claims are rendered obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art over co-pending Application No. 18/895,823.
Please see the claims map below, The text highlighted in bold represents the claims text of the current application (18/897,005) with the un-boldened text in parenthesis representing the claims of the co-pending application (18/895,823) along with the respective claim number.
A vehicle control device comprising: (C1, “A vehicle control device comprising:”)
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle; (C1, “a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle;”)
a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle; and (C1, “a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle; and”)
a braking controller configured to (C1, “a braking controller configured to”)
execute deceleration control based on (C1, “perform at least deceleration control based on”)
a target deceleration of the host vehicle when (C1, “a target deceleration of the host vehicle when”)
determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle, (C1, “determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle,”)
based on a detection result of the driving state detector, (C8, “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.”)
wherein the braking controller(C1, “wherein the braking controller”)
stops the deceleration control (C1, “changes the target deceleration”)
when an accelerator operation of a prescribed value or more of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector, and(C1, “based on whether or not an accelerator operation of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector.”)
changes the prescribed value based on an operation speed of the accelerator operation. (C7, “wherein the braking controller determines whether or not to execute deceleration control, on a condition of a speed of the host vehicle, 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.”)
Claims 2-4 are rejected due to double patenting due to their dependence on Claim 1, however co-pending application 18/895,823 does not claim the modification of elements pertaining to a shifting prescribed value.
Furthermore, independent claims 5 and 6 are the vehicle control method and non-transitory storage medium for the vehicle control device of claim 1 and are substantially similar to the point wherein the same application of claims 1, 7, and 8 from the co-pending application would similarly read on.
Claim Interpretation
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, sixth 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle;” in claim 1
The office recommends rewriting the claim to remove the phrase “configured to” to avoid interpretation under 112(f) and strengthen the claims.
“a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle” in claim 1
The office recommends rewriting the claim to remove the phrase “configured to” to avoid interpretation under 112(f) and strengthen the claims.
“a braking controller configured to execute deceleration control based on a target deceleration of the host vehicle” in claim 1
The office interprets the braking controller to encompass the deceleration system of the vehicle control device.
The office recommends rewriting the claim to remove the phrase “configured to” to avoid interpretation under 112(f) and strengthen the claims.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4 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.
The term “prescribed value” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “prescribed value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A prescribed value for accelerator operation is a broad term that can encompass multiple aspects of vehicle acceleration such as depress angle, depress time, and throttle. The specification additionally sets out multiple definitions for the prescribed value.
Claim limitation “a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle” found within claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Currently, the given specification describes the recognizer can either function as a hardware or software. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “recognizes a surrounding situation of the host vehicle M based on information input from the external detection device” (¶ 0035). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to recognize. Defining the functions of the recognizer as to recognize “a position and a state such as a speed or an acceleration of an object present in the surroundings” (¶ 0035), “a relative position or a relative speed to the object” (¶ 0035), “a lane (traveling lane) on which the host vehicle M is traveling” (¶ 0036), “a traveling lane by comparing a pattern” (¶ 0036), “a traveling lane by recognizing a road marking or a lane boundary” (¶ 0036), “an obstacle, a stop line, a red light, a tollgate, and other road events” (¶ 0036), “the position or posture of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane” (¶ 0037), “a deviation of a reference point of the host vehicle M from a lane center and an angle of the host vehicle M with respect to a line connecting the lane centers in a moving direction as a relative position and a posture of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane” (¶ 0037), and “recognize the position or the like of the reference point of the host vehicle M with respect to any side end portion (road marking or road boundary) of the traveling lane as a relative position of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane.” (¶ 0037) does not explicitly or inherently provide structure as to how the recognizer performs the recognition function. Although the current specification does anticipate the recognizer to be software implemented in hardware such as a computer as referenced within ¶ 0032, the use of the relative phrase of “for example” prevents the explicit or implicit implementation of the recognizer as software running in hardware. Additionally, ¶ 0032 foresees the recognizer as being “implemented by cooperation of hardware and software” which implies the recognizer potentially doing part of the recognizing in hardware rather than mere software, for which the specification does not clearly denote.
Claim limitation “a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle” found within claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Currently, the given specification describes the recognizer can either function as a hardware or software. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “detects a prescribed driving state of an occupant (driver) of the host vehicle M” (¶ 0038). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to detect driver state. Defining the functions of detecting a distracted driver by “an analysis result of an image captured by the driver monitor camera” (¶ 0039), “steering amount (amount of steering torque) of the driver based on the detection result of the SW sensor” (¶ 0040), “operation amount (operation degree) of the accelerator pedal 84 based on the detection result of the AP sensor” (¶ 0040), and “operation amount (operation degree) of the brake pedal 86 based on the detection result of the BP sensor” (¶ 0040) does not explicitly or inherently provide structure as to how the driving state detector determines the driving state of the driver given its primary role is to interpret information from other sensors. Although the current specification does anticipate the driving state detector to be software implemented in hardware such as a computer as referenced within ¶ 0032, the use of the relative phrase of “for example” prevents the explicit or implicit implementation of the driving state detector determines as software running in hardware. Additionally, ¶ 0032 foresees the driving state detector as being “implemented by cooperation of hardware and software” which implies the recognizer potentially doing part of the recognizing in hardware rather than only software, for which the specification does not clearly denote.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(b)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(b)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(b)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle” found within claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Currently, the given specification describes the recognizer can either function as a hardware or software. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “recognizes a surrounding situation of the host vehicle M based on information input from the external detection device” (¶ 0035). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to recognize. Defining the functions of the recognizer as to recognize “a position and a state such as a speed or an acceleration of an object present in the surroundings” (¶ 0035), “a relative position or a relative speed to the object” (¶ 0035), “a lane (traveling lane) on which the host vehicle M is traveling” (¶ 0036), “a traveling lane by comparing a pattern” (¶ 0036), “a traveling lane by recognizing a road marking or a lane boundary” (¶ 0036), “an obstacle, a stop line, a red light, a tollgate, and other road events” (¶ 0036), “the position or posture of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane” (¶ 0037), “a deviation of a reference point of the host vehicle M from a lane center and an angle of the host vehicle M with respect to a line connecting the lane centers in a moving direction as a relative position and a posture of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane” (¶ 0037), and “recognize the position or the like of the reference point of the host vehicle M with respect to any side end portion (road marking or road boundary) of the traveling lane as a relative position of the host vehicle M with respect to the traveling lane.” (¶ 0037) does not explicitly or inherently provide structure as to how the recognizer performs the recognition function. Although the current specification does anticipate the recognizer to be software implemented in hardware such as a computer as referenced within ¶ 0032, the use of the relative phrase of “for example” prevents the explicit or implicit implementation of the recognizer as software running in hardware. Additionally, ¶ 0032 foresees the recognizer as being “implemented by cooperation of hardware and software” which implies the recognizer potentially doing part of the recognizing in hardware rather than mere software, for which the specification does not clearly denote.
Claim limitation “a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle” found within claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. Currently, the given specification describes the recognizer can either function as a hardware or software. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of a unit that “detects a prescribed driving state of an occupant (driver) of the host vehicle M” (¶ 0038). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to detect driver state. Defining the functions of detecting a distracted driver by “an analysis result of an image captured by the driver monitor camera” (¶ 0039), “steering amount (amount of steering torque) of the driver based on the detection result of the SW sensor” (¶ 0040), “operation amount (operation degree) of the accelerator pedal 84 based on the detection result of the AP sensor” (¶ 0040), and “operation amount (operation degree) of the brake pedal 86 based on the detection result of the BP sensor” (¶ 0040) does not explicitly or inherently provide structure as to how the driving state detector determines the driving state of the driver given its primary role is to interpret information from other sensors. Although the current specification does anticipate the driving state detector to be software implemented in hardware such as a computer as referenced within ¶ 0032, the use of the relative phrase of “for example” prevents the explicit or implicit implementation of the driving state detector determines as software running in hardware. Additionally, ¶ 0032 foresees the driving state detector as being “implemented by cooperation of hardware and software” which implies the recognizer potentially doing part of the recognizing in hardware rather than only software, for which the specification does not clearly denote.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKE (US 20210061268 A1) in view of SUGANO (US 20050182551 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
IKE discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising: (see at least IKE, ¶ 0015, “a controller configured to: [0016] (i) perform, when determination is made that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the obstacle, automatic braking control for avoiding collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle by generating the braking force with the braking device without the braking operation of the driver; [0017] (ii) prohibit the automatic braking control when determination is made that an accelerator operation index value is equal to or larger than an operation threshold, the accelerator operation index value having a correlation with an accelerator operation of the driver; [0018] (iii) determine whether a type of the obstacle is a specific type set in advance; and [0019] (iv) avoid prohibiting the automatic braking control when determination is made that the type of the obstacle is the specific type.”)
a recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle; (see at least IKE, ¶ 0014, “an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle around the driver's vehicle; and”; ¶ 0065, “The collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle may collide with a three-dimensional object ahead of the driver's vehicle based on front sensor information supplied from the front sensor and a vehicle condition detected by the vehicle condition sensor 70. For example, the collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object when the three-dimensional object keeps a current moving state (stopped state if the three-dimensional object is a stationary object) and the driver's vehicle keeps a current traveling state. When the collision determination unit 11 determines that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object based on the determination result, the collision determination unit 11 recognizes the three-dimensional object as an obstacle.”)
a braking controller configured to execute deceleration control based on a target deceleration of the host vehicle when (see at least IKE, ¶ 0070, “In the PCS control of this embodiment, the level of the possibility of collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle is divided into two stages based on the collision prediction time TTC. In an early stage, that is, in a first stage, the notification unit 12 warns the driver by using the buzzer 90 and the indicator 41. In a second stage higher than the first stage in terms of the level of the possibility of collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle, the automatic braking control unit 13 performs automatic braking control to assist collision avoidance.”; ¶ 0073, “The PCS request deceleration Gpcs can be calculated as follows. For example, if an obstacle is stopped, a traveling distance X required to stop the driver's vehicle can be represented by Expression (2) when a current speed of the driver's vehicle (=relative speed) is represented by “V”, a deceleration of the driver's vehicle is represented by “a” (<0), and a time required to stop the vehicle is represented by “t”.”)
determination is made that an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle, based on a detection result of the driving state detector, (see at least IKE, ¶ 0065, “The collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle may collide with a three-dimensional object ahead of the driver's vehicle based on front sensor information supplied from the front sensor and a vehicle condition detected by the vehicle condition sensor 70. For example, the collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object when the three-dimensional object keeps a current moving state (stopped state if the three-dimensional object is a stationary object) and the driver's vehicle keeps a current traveling state. When the collision determination unit 11 determines that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object based on the determination result, the collision determination unit 11 recognizes the three-dimensional object as an obstacle.”)
wherein the braking controller stops the deceleration control when an accelerator operation of a prescribed value or more of the occupant is detected by the driving state detector, and (see at least IKE, ¶ 0015; ¶ 0107, “When determination is made in Step S13 that the accelerator operation amount AP is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1 (S13: No), the driving assistance ECU 10 advances the process to Step S15. In Step S15, the driving assistance ECU 10 determines whether the accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than a second operation amount threshold AP2 and an accelerator operation speed AS is equal to or higher than an operation speed threshold AS1. The second operation amount threshold AP2 is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1, but is set to a value that the accelerator operation amount AP reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively forceful accelerator operation. The accelerator operation speed AS is an amount of change in the accelerator operation amount AP per unit time. The operation speed threshold AS1 is set to a value that the accelerator operation speed AS reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively quick accelerator operation.”)
changes the prescribed value based on an operation speed of the accelerator operation. (see at least IKE, ¶ 0085, “The prohibition unit 14 determines whether an accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than a first operation amount threshold AP1. When determination is made that the accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than the first operation amount threshold AP1, the prohibition unit 14 prohibits the automatic braking control unit 13 from performing the automatic braking control. The automatic braking control unit 13 does not start the automatic braking control when the automatic braking control is prohibited before the automatic braking control is performed (that is, AP is equal to or larger than AP1). The automatic braking control unit 13 terminates the automatic braking control when the automatic braking control is prohibited while the automatic braking control is performed (that is, AP increases to AP1 or larger).”)
IKE does not disclose, but SUGANO teaches:
a driving state detector configured to detect a driving state of an occupant of the host vehicle; and (see at least SUGANO, ¶ 0003, “The present invention generally relates to a vehicle driving control device. More specifically, the present invention relate to a vehicle driving control device that generates preliminary braking force prior to the operation of the brakes by the driver, and improves response to driver brake operation and shortens the free running distance.”; ¶ 0006, “There is also known a preliminary braking force control device that generates a preliminary braking force prior to operation of the brakes by the driver, thereby improving response to brake operation by the driver and shortening the free running distance. One such preliminary braking force control device is disclosed in Japanese Laid-Open Patent Application No. 2000-309257.”; ¶ 0070, “When the attention of the driver with regard to the preceding vehicle has decreased, it is more likely that a decision to apply the brakes will be late, so the attention of the driver with regard to the preceding vehicle is estimated from the driver's fixation point information and the information about what is ahead of the vehicle provided by the camera image, the preliminary braking force P.sub.p is raised in proportion to how much the driver's attention to the preceding vehicle is judged to have decreased because of looking to the side, etc., and a preliminary braking force that is suited to the delayed decision to apply the brakes can be achieved.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the deceleration control based on the surrounding environment and accelerator override within IKE to include braking control based on driver attention as within SUGANO to yield a safer vehicle braking control that preemptively adjust brakes based on driver attentiveness.
Regarding claim 2:
IKE in view of SUGANO discloses the limitations within claim 1 and IKE further discloses:
wherein the braking controller sets the prescribed value to be smaller when the operation speed is equal to or higher than a prescribed speed. (see at least IKE, ¶ 0068, “More specifically, when an obstacle is detected, the collision determination unit 11 calculates a collision prediction time TTC that may elapse until the driver's vehicle collides with the obstacle. The collision prediction time TTC is calculated from Expression (1) based on a distance “d” between the obstacle and the driver's vehicle and a relative speed Vr of the driver's vehicle to the obstacle.”; ¶ 0107, “When determination is made in Step S13 that the accelerator operation amount AP is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1 (S13: No), the driving assistance ECU 10 advances the process to Step S15. In Step S15, the driving assistance ECU 10 determines whether the accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than a second operation amount threshold AP2 and an accelerator operation speed AS is equal to or higher than an operation speed threshold AS1. The second operation amount threshold AP2 is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1, but is set to a value that the accelerator operation amount AP reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively forceful accelerator operation. The accelerator operation speed AS is an amount of change in the accelerator operation amount AP per unit time. The operation speed threshold AS1 is set to a value that the accelerator operation speed AS reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively quick accelerator operation.”; ¶ 0108, “Thus, the process of Step S15 is a process of determining whether an accelerator operation is performed in a relatively large operation amount and at a relatively high operation speed though the accelerator operation amount AP is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1.”)
Regarding claim 3:
IKE in view of SUGANO discloses the limitations within claim 1 and IKE further discloses:
wherein the braking controller sets the prescribed value to be greater when the operation speed is lower than a prescribed speed. (see at least IKE, ¶ 0107, “When determination is made in Step S13 that the accelerator operation amount AP is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1 (S13: No), the driving assistance ECU 10 advances the process to Step S15. In Step S15, the driving assistance ECU 10 determines whether the accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than a second operation amount threshold AP2 and an accelerator operation speed AS is equal to or higher than an operation speed threshold AS1. The second operation amount threshold AP2 is smaller than the first operation amount threshold AP1, but is set to a value that the accelerator operation amount AP reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively forceful accelerator operation. The accelerator operation speed AS is an amount of change in the accelerator operation amount AP per unit time. The operation speed threshold AS1 is set to a value that the accelerator operation speed AS reaches only when an accelerator operation is regarded as a relatively quick accelerator operation.”)
Regarding claim 5:
With regards to claim 5, this claim is the vehicle control method to vehicle control device claim 1 substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Regarding claim 6:
With regards to claim 5, this claim is the non-transitory storage medium to vehicle control device claim 1 substantially similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IKE (US 20210061268 A1) in view of SUGANO (US 20050182551 A1) in further view of DUX (DE102021114530A1).
IKE in view of SUGANO discloses the limitations within claim 1 and IKE further discloses:
wherein the braking controller changes the prescribed value according to (see at least IKE, ¶ 0085, “The prohibition unit 14 determines whether an accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than a first operation amount threshold AP1. When determination is made that the accelerator operation amount AP is equal to or larger than the first operation amount threshold AP1, the prohibition unit 14 prohibits the automatic braking control unit 13 from performing the automatic braking control. The automatic braking control unit 13 does not start the automatic braking control when the automatic braking control is prohibited before the automatic braking control is performed (that is, AP is equal to or larger than AP1). The automatic braking control unit 13 terminates the automatic braking control when the automatic braking control is prohibited while the automatic braking control is performed (that is, AP increases to AP1 or larger).”)
IKE does not disclose, but DUX teaches:
the target deceleration to set the prescribed value to be greater as the target deceleration becomes greater. (see at least DUX, ¶ 0035, "The third step S3 involves determining and setting the threshold to a second threshold value that must be exceeded in order to override the emergency brake assist's braking intervention through the accelerator pedal interaction. The determination of the second threshold, which is significantly larger than the first threshold, is based on the negative acceleration of the vehicle caused by the braking intervention."; ¶ 0036, "This allows the threshold to be set, depending on the strength of the emergency brake assist's braking intervention, which must be exceeded to override the emergency brake assist's braking intervention through the accelerator pedal interaction. This ensures that the emergency brake assist's braking intervention can only be overridden by a deliberate interaction with the accelerator pedal.")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the breaking override of IKE in view of DUSANO to include the accounting for deceleration applied for determining accelerator override within DUX to yield a safer automatic stop system that better determines driver intention for bypassing safety systems by requiring a high user acceleration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NITZ (US 20120296542 A1)
¶ 0009, “The invention starts out from a conventional method of automatically decelerating a vehicle to avoid a collision or reduce the consequences of a collision with a detected collision object, wherein, in the event of an imminent collision, at a determined intervention point-in-time, a brake system of the vehicle is automatically triggered such that a deceleration of the vehicle is caused. Even before the intervention point-in-time, a driver warning can be triggered at a determined warning point-in-time in order to draw a driver's attention to the danger of a collision at an early point-in-time. In this case, the warning to the driver is emitted so early that it will still be possible for the driver to independently initiate a corresponding driver reaction for avoiding the collision.”
¶ 0012, “The first differential pedal angle that is dependent on the actual deceleration can advantageously be specified as follows: If the vehicle brakes with a slight deceleration, advantageously even a slight accelerator actuation will be sufficient for signaling an intention to override; i.e. in the case of slight decelerations, a small first differential pedal angle can also be specified as a first differential pedal angle. However, if the vehicle brakes with a full deceleration, the intention to override is recognized only on the basis of a hard accelerator application or the actuation of the kick-down switch, and an automatic deactivation of the braking intervention will be carried out; i.e., in the case of large decelerations (especially a full deceleration), a large or larger first differential pedal angle than at slight decelerations can be specified as the first differential pedal angle.”
HARA (US 20210300342 A1)
¶ 0054, “More specifically, the vehicle state determining unit 46 may determine the initiation of the override operation when the pressing amount of the brake pedal 24 acquired (detected) by the brake sensor 27 has reached or exceeded a prescribed threshold (hereinafter referred to as “pressing threshold”). Additionally or alternatively, the vehicle state determining unit 46 may determine the initiation of the override operation when a pressing amount of the accelerator pedal 23 acquired (detected) by the accelerator sensor 28 has reached or exceeded a prescribed threshold. The vehicle state determining unit 46 may also determine the initiation of the override operation when a changing rate of the steering angle obtained (detected) by the steering angle sensor 26 has reached or exceeded a prescribed threshold.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667