DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 4/20/2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended and claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-5 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “D3 teaches determining whether a depression amount of the accelerator pedal exceeds a threshold depression amount within a specified period of time. In contrast, amended claim 1 clarifies that the processor of the claimed vehicle control apparatus determines whether the operation amount of the acceleration operation is equal to or more than a predetermined permission threshold operation amount based on whether the operation amount is equal to or exceeds the predetermined threshold amount for longer than a threshold amount of time” and that “D3 fails to remedy the deficiencies the Office Action conceded to in relation to the teachings of D1 and D2” in pages 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, wherein “D3” is referring to the reference Kwon. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kwon teaches an abnormal acceleration is determined when the depression amount (Applicant’s operation amount) exceeds the reference depression amount (predetermined threshold amount) within a predetermined time (threshold amount of time). Therefore, if the pedal is depressed at above a reference depression amount (predetermined threshold amount) for a length of time (duration) that is over the predetermined time (threshold amount of time), then the determination is made for abnormal acceleration prevention.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth objections. The previously set forth objections to the claims have been withdrawn. However, amendments have necessitated new objections as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §112 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §103 are maintained as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 5, “memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to” should read “memory storing executable instructions that cause the processor to:”.
Regarding claim 4, lines 1-4, “wherein the executable instructions further cause the processor to the threshold amount of time” should read “wherein the threshold amount of time”
Regarding claim 5, lines 2-3, “cause the processor to” should read “cause the processor to:”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are 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 Kwon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0261144 A1; hereinafter Kwon) and 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 collision between a vehicle and an object (pre-collision control performing unit, see at least [0012]),the vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a processor (ECU 10, see at least [0094]); and
memory storing executable instructions (ECU comprises CPU 11 and memories for executing instructions, see at least [0094]) that cause the processor 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]);
Hoshikawa does not explicitly disclose:
the acceleration operation satisfies the permission condition when a duration time, over 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
the threshold amount of time when a facilitation condition is met is lower than the threshold amount of time when the facilitation condition is not met, the facilitation condition being met when at least one of a state of the driver or a traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state
However, Kwon teaches:
the acceleration operation satisfies the permission condition when a duration time, over 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]).
Furthermore, Ito teaches:
the threshold amount of time when a facilitation condition is met is lower than the threshold amount of time when the facilitation condition is not met, the facilitation condition being met when at least one of a state of the driver or a traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state (upper limit of absolute value of acceleration are set smaller with degradation of driver’s condition compared with upper limit corresponding to normal condition of driver, see at least [0091]; 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 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]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hoshikawa, Kwon, and Ito teaches the elements above and Hoshikawa further discloses:
the executable instructions further cause the processor to determine that the prohibition condition is met when the operation amount is equal to or more than a predetermined prohibition threshold operation amount, the predetermined prohibition threshold operation amount being having 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 Kwon and 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 executable instructions further cause the processor to the threshold amount of time when both of the state of the driver and the traveling state of the vehicle are an abnormal state is lower than when only one of either the state of the driver or the traveling state of the vehicle is an abnormal state.
However, McGill teaches:
the executable instructions further cause the processor to the threshold amount of time when both of the state of the driver and the traveling state of the vehicle are an abnormal state is lower than when only one of either the state of the driver or the traveling state of the vehicle is 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 Kwon and Ito as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of McGill.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hoshikawa and Ito teaches the elements above but Hoshikawa does not disclose:
the executable instructions further cause the processor to determine that the state of the driver is abnormal when the driver is dozing off, has fainted, or is having convulsions; 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 executable instructions further cause the processor to determine that the state of the driver is abnormal when the driver is dozing off, has fainted, or is having convulsions (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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights