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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the vehicle control apparatus is configured to” should read “the vehicle control apparatus is further configured to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “more easily” in claims 1 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more easily” 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. It is unclear how a condition can be met “more easily” and what this limitation would entail.
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the deficiency above. Therefore, claims 2-5 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0092343 A1; hereinafter Hoshikawa) in view of Ito et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294547 A1; hereinafter Ito).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshikawa discloses
A vehicle control apparatus (driving support device, see at least [0008]) that executes vehicle control for reducing a collision risk of colliding with a vehicle when an object having the collision risk is present (pre-collision control performing unit, see at least [0012]), wherein:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: prohibit execution of the vehicle control when an operation relating to a behavior of the vehicle by a driver satisfies a predetermined prohibition condition (allowance condition has not been satisfied if accelerator operation amount is not equal to or greater than operation amount threshold and pre-collision control is not performed, see at least [0019]) *Examiner sets forth an acceleration by the driver is the behavior of the vehicle by a driver as long as the acceleration does not exceed a threshold;
permit execution of the vehicle control even when the prohibition condition is met when an acceleration operation for accelerating the vehicle satisfies a predetermined permission condition (if acceleration is equal to or greater than , pre-collision control is performed, see at least [0019]); and
Hoshikawa does not explicitly disclose:
at least one of a state of the driver or a traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state
However, Ito teaches:
cause the permission condition to be met more easily when a facilitation condition in which at least one of a state of the driver or a traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state is met as compared to when the facilitation condition is not met (upper limit of absolute value of acceleration are set smaller with degradation of driver’s condition compared with upper limit corresponding o normal condition of driver, see at least [0091])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa by adding the variable limit for acceleration based on driver condition taught by Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a warning for the possibility of a collision with an object, an assistance of the brake operation, or the forcible brake operation can be activated at an earlier time with a degradation of the driver's condition” (see [0091]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshikawa in view of Ito as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0261144 A1; hereinafter Kwon).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hoshikawa and Ito teaches the elements above but Hoshikawa does not disclose:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: determine that the acceleration operation satisfies the permission condition when a duration time in which an operation amount of the acceleration operation is equal to or more than a predetermined permission threshold operation amount is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold amount of time; and cause the threshold amount of time to be smaller when the facilitation condition is met as compared to when the facilitation condition is not met.
However, Ito teaches:
cause the threshold amount of time to be smaller when the facilitation condition is met as compared to when the facilitation condition is not met (with degradation of driver’s condition, assistance of brake operation can be activated at an earlier time, see at least [0091]; in absent-minded state, time interval for warning becomes shorter, see at least [0092])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa by adding the variable limit based on driver condition taught by Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “a warning for the possibility of a collision with an object, an assistance of the brake operation, or the forcible brake operation can be activated at an earlier time with a degradation of the driver's condition” (see [0091]).
Additionally, Kwon teaches:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: determine that the acceleration operation satisfies the permission condition when a duration time in which an operation amount of the acceleration operation is equal to or more than a predetermined permission threshold operation amount is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold amount of time (determination of whether abnormal acceleration prevention is necessary may be performed according to whether depression amount of accelerator pedal exceeds reference depression amount of the accelerator pedal within a predetermined time, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa and the variable limit based on driver condition taught by Ito by adding the depression time taught by Kwon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to devise technical measures capable of preventing abnormal acceleration due to misoperation of an accelerator pedal” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hoshikawa, Ito, and Kwon teaches the elements above and Hoshikawa further discloses:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to determine that the prohibition condition is met when the operation amount is equal to or more than a predetermined prohibition threshold operation amount set to a value equal to or less than the permission threshold operation amount (determining whether accelerator operation amount is smaller than a second operation threshold and if it is smaller, then pre-collision control is not allowed, see at least Fig. 8 and [0233]) *Examiner sets forth that if a pre-collision control is not allowed, driver is maintaining control
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshikawa in view of Ito as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Boss et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0162307 A1; hereinafter Boss) and McGill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0202464 A1; hereinafter McGill).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hoshikawa and Ito teaches the elements above but Hoshikawa does not disclose:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to cause the permission condition to be met more easily when both of the state of the driver and the traveling state of the vehicle are an abnormal state as compared to when either the state of the driver or the traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state.
However, McGill teaches:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to cause the permission condition to be met more easily when both of the state of the driver and the traveling state of the vehicle are an abnormal state (incapacitated drivers are usually unable to operate motor vehicles such as swerving in and out of lanes, see at least [0002]; determine a driver is incapacitated based on data stream and cause vehicle to be switched to at least partially autonomous driving mode, see at least [0005])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa and the variable limit for acceleration based on driver condition taught by Ito by adding the switch to autonomous driving based on incapacitated driver swerving taught by McGill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to control the vehicle at least partially autonomously complete one or more driving maneuvers… that accounts for specific driving attributes that are normally challenging for a driver under the influence of alcohol to complete such as, for example, changing lanes and maintaining the vehicle 100 in a specific lane without excessive swerving” (see [0054]).
Additionally, Boss teaches:
both of the state of the driver and the traveling state of the vehicle are an abnormal state as compared to when either the state of the driver or the traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state (when driver is driving sleepy, driver reaches risk pattern of 100km/h but when driver is angry, the risk of 100km/h is not reached, see at least [0100])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa, the variable limit for acceleration based on driver condition taught by Ito, and the switch to autonomous driving based on incapacitated driver swerving taught by McGill by adding the determination of risk in addition to driver state taught by Boss with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to diagnose risk situations and prevent them by obtaining and analyzing several consecutive “snapshots” of the passengers, including the driver, and vehicle status data, contextualized in the environment in which this data is being generated, and learning from its changes” (see [0012]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshikawa in view of Ito as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Boss.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hoshikawa and Ito teaches the elements above but Hoshikawa does not disclose:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: determine that the state of the driver is abnormal when the driver is dozing off, has fainted, or is having a convulsion; and determine that the traveling state is abnormal when the vehicle travels out of a traveling lane, the vehicle travels in a wrong direction in the traveling lane, or the vehicle travels at a speed equal to or more than a speed limit.
However, Ito teaches:
the vehicle control apparatus is configured to: determine that the state of the driver is abnormal when the driver is dozing off, has fainted, or is having a convulsion (determine drowsiness of driver, see at least [0135])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa by adding the driver condition detection taught by Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to secure a driving safety in response to a detection of an abnormal condition of the driver” (see [0012]).
Additionally, McGill teaches:
determine that the traveling state is abnormal when the vehicle travels out of a traveling lane, the vehicle travels in a wrong direction in the traveling lane, or the vehicle travels at a speed equal to or more than a speed limit (incapacitated drivers are usually unable to operate motor vehicles such as swerving in and out of lanes, see at least [0002])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pre-collision control based on an acceleration amount disclosed by Hoshikawa and the variable limit for acceleration based on driver condition taught by Ito by adding the switch to autonomous driving based on incapacitated driver swerving taught by McGill with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to control the vehicle at least partially autonomously complete one or more driving maneuvers… that accounts for specific driving attributes that are normally challenging for a driver under the influence of alcohol to complete such as, for example, changing lanes and maintaining the vehicle 100 in a specific lane without excessive swerving” (see [0054]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otake (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0037216 A1) teaches determining a driver has not operated the vehicle in a threshold amount of time and causing a lane keep assist to be operated in a weaker mode to determine whether driver takes control or not.
Laur et al. (U.S. 2016/0375900 A1) teaches determining whether an operator is aware of an object in order to override the operator to avoid interference with the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662