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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Response dated 5/6/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-18 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. All pending claims therefore have an effective filing date of 10/27/2023.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see pages 8-9 of 12, filed 5/6/2026, with respect to claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 112(b) rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's first argument, see pages 9-10 of 12, filed 5/6/2026, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that Oshita does not teach the determination of braking prior to deactivation of adaptive cruise control (ACC) system, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0057] of Oshita, as previously cited, details a determination of a compromised ACC system, and the extent of how much braking can still occur upon the detection of the compromised ACC system. Additionally, paragraph [0052] explains the process of detecting an abnormality, utilizing vehicle brakes to decelerate the vehicle, and then removing the ACC.
Applicant's second argument, see page 11 of 12, filed 5/6/2026, has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that, similar to above, Weston does not teach the determination of braking prior to deactivation of adaptive cruise control (ACC) system, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Oshita teaches these details, as explained above.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…precited to be…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…predicted to be…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation via spelling error, if that is in fact the Applicant’s intent.
Claim 8 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 10 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a target vehicle…a target vehicle…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a target vehicle…[ [ a ] ] the target vehicle…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 8 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 10 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 1 as currently presented states “…a vehicle brake system…the vehicle braking system…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a vehicle brake system…the vehicle brake system…”, or the like, so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Claim 4 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 8 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 10 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 13 is objected to for similar reasons.
Claim 6 as currently presented states “…the step…” to which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…a step…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita et al. (US-2023/0008352; hereinafter Oshita; already of record from IDS) in view of Grelaud et al. (US-2025/0091577; hereinafter Grelaud; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Oshita discloses a method, performed by a control arrangement, for controlling an adaptive cruise control system of a host vehicle, said adaptive cruise control system being configured to maintain a safe distance to a target vehicle in front of the host vehicle by sending braking demand control signals to a vehicle brake system comprising one or more auxiliary brake systems and a service brake system (see Oshita at least [0001], [0005]-[0007], [0016], and [0032]), the method comprising:
in response to a determination of risk of loss of functionality of the adaptive cruise control system while the host vehicle is, or is precited to be, decelerated by the adaptive cruise control system, determining whether or not the host vehicle can be braked using at least the service brake system to maintain the safe distance to a target vehicle in front of the host vehicle (see Oshita at least [0051]-[0053] “In Step 13, it is determined whether the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D. In Step S14, it is determined whether the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend. Those determinations are performed by vehicle-stopping control section 34. When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D and the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S15. In Step S15, vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is performed and the ACC is removed. The driver is to be notified of the fact that the vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is being performed and the ACC is removed by information output section 50. When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, it means that the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is short and the distance from the leading car is to be decreased. When the ACC is removed in such a situation, there is a risk that an accident is caused. Thus, in Step S15, driving assistance apparatus 30 of the present embodiment performs vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 with the removal of the ACC. At this time, the vehicle-stopping control signal (target deceleration speed) is output to brake ECU 24 from vehicle-stopping control section 34. As a result, vehicle 1 stops in accordance with the target deceleration speed.” and [0057] "As described above, according to the present embodiment, driving assistance apparatus 30 includes: ACC section 32; abnormality detection section 33 that detects an abnormality of the detector used to execute the ACC; and vehicle-stopping control section 34 that performs the vehicle-stopping control of the own car when an abnormality is detected by abnormality detection section 33 and the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car satisfies a predetermined condition. As a result, driving assistance apparatus 30 capable of reducing the possibility of collision even when the detector necessary for executing the ACC fails during the execution of the ACC and normal ACC cannot be executed.");
if it is determined that the host vehicle may be braked by at least the service brake system, activating a first failure mode during which the adaptive cruise control system is maintained active to [regulate vehicle controls] (see Oshita at least [0045] "Automatic-following traveling control is control that operates driving system 10 and braking system 20 such that the inter-vehicle distance is within a predetermined target range and the relative speed approaches zero when a leading vehicle is present in a predetermined range..."); and
when [vehicle controls are regulated], either:
control the adaptive cruise control system to decrease over a predetermined period of time an amount of braking performed by the vehicle braking system, and thereafter deactivating the adaptive cruise control system, or
directly deactivating the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least Fig 4 and [0051]-[0053] "In Step 13, it is determined whether the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D. In Step S14, it is determined whether the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend. Those determinations are performed by vehicle-stopping control section 34. When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D and the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S15. In Step S15, vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is performed and the ACC is removed. The driver is to be notified of the fact that the vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is being performed and the ACC is removed by information output section 50. When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, it means that the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is short and the distance from the leading car is to be decreased. When the ACC is removed in such a situation, there is a risk that an accident is caused. Thus, in Step S15, driving assistance apparatus 30 of the present embodiment performs vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 with the removal of the ACC. At this time, the vehicle-stopping control signal (target deceleration speed) is output to brake ECU 24 from vehicle-stopping control section 34. As a result, vehicle 1 stops in accordance with the target deceleration speed.").
However, while Oshita discloses the deceleration of the vehicle by way of monitoring an inter-vehicle distance, it is not explicit that Oshita discloses the following:
…decelerate the host vehicle until one of: (i) a deceleration demand of the adaptive cruise control system is below a predetermined threshold, or (ii) a difference in speed between the host vehicle and the target vehicle is below a predetermined limit…
…when the deceleration demand of the adaptive cruise control system is below the predetermined threshold, or the difference in speed between the host vehicle and the target vehicle is below the predetermined limit…
Grelaud, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…decelerate the host vehicle until one of: (i) a deceleration demand of the adaptive cruise control system is below a predetermined threshold (see Grelaud at least [0039] "At block 418, adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 compares the computed required deceleration a to a deceleration threshold a.sub.max. In response to adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 determining that an absolute value of the computed threshold |a| is less than or equal to the deceleration threshold a.sub.max (“YES” at decision block 422), adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 commands vehicle electronic control unit 106 to decelerate the ego vehicle at required deceleration a at block 422 and process 400 proceeds to block 426."), or (ii) a difference in speed between the host vehicle and the target vehicle is below a predetermined limit…
…when the deceleration demand of the adaptive cruise control system is below the predetermined threshold (see Grelaud at least [0039] "At block 418, adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 compares the computed required deceleration a to a deceleration threshold a.sub.max. In response to adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 determining that an absolute value of the computed threshold |a| is less than or equal to the deceleration threshold a.sub.max (“YES” at decision block 422), adaptive cruise control system control unit 104 commands vehicle electronic control unit 106 to decelerate the ego vehicle at required deceleration a at block 422 and process 400 proceeds to block 426."), or the difference in speed between the host vehicle and the target vehicle is below the predetermined limit…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with a deceleration threshold such as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success so as to regulate vehicle controls (see Grelaud at least [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the method according to claim 1, wherein said determination of risk of loss of functionality of the adaptive cruise control system is based on an assessment that the host vehicle cannot be positively accelerated by the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least [0046] "The outputs of detectors used to realize the ACC are input to abnormality detection section 33, which detects the abnormality of each detector. For example, the detectors used to realize the ACC include the millimeter-wave radar, the camera, the laser radar (not shown), a vehicle speed sensor (not shown), and the like. An abnormality signal is output to abnormality detection section 33 when the outputs of those detectors are in a state in which the ACC cannot be normally executed (for example, when there is a failure). The abnormality signal is transmitted to ACC section 32 and vehicle-stopping control section 34.").
Regarding claim 3, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
when deactivating the adaptive cruise control system, generating a warning message and/or signal adapted to inform a driver of the host vehicle of deactivation of the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least [0046] "The outputs of detectors used to realize the ACC are input to abnormality detection section 33, which detects the abnormality of each detector. For example, the detectors used to realize the ACC include the millimeter-wave radar, the camera, the laser radar (not shown), a vehicle speed sensor (not shown), and the like. An abnormality signal is output to abnormality detection section 33 when the outputs of those detectors are in a state in which the ACC cannot be normally executed (for example, when there is a failure). The abnormality signal is transmitted to ACC section 32 and vehicle-stopping control section 34." and [0052] "When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D and the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S15. In Step S15, vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is performed and the ACC is removed. The driver is to be notified of the fact that the vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is being performed and the ACC is removed by information output section 50.").
Regarding claim 8, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the analogous material of claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons. Grelaud also teaches …a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product for deactivating an adaptive cruise control system of a host vehicle, said adaptive cruise control system being configured to maintain a safe distance to a target vehicle in front of the host vehicle through usage of one or more auxiliary brake systems and a service brake system of the host vehicle (see Grelaud at least [0015])…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with a computer program product such as taught by Grelaud with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the analogous material of claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the analogous material of claim 2 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the analogous material of claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the analogous material of claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4-5, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita in view of Grelaud, and further in view of Havlak et al. (US-11,970,164; hereinafter Havlak).
Regarding claim 4, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a determination that information pertaining to the target vehicle is lost by the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least [0054] "Meanwhile, when a negative result is obtained in either one of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is greater than threshold value D or the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is not on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S16..."), …
thereafter deactivating the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least [0054] "Meanwhile, when a negative result is obtained in either one of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is greater than threshold value D or the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is not on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S16. In Step S16, the ACC is removed, and the vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is not performed. The driver is to be notified of the fact that the ACC is removed by information output section 50.").
However, while Oshita discloses deactivation of adaptive cruise control, neither Oshita nor Grelaud explicitly disclose or teach the following:
…activating a second failure mode during which the adaptive cruise control system is controlled to decrease over the predetermined period of time the amount of braking performed by the vehicle braking system…
Havlak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…activating a second failure mode during which the adaptive cruise control system is controlled to decrease over the predetermined period of time the amount of braking performed by the vehicle braking system (see Havlak at least col 15 lines 47-56 “…In some examples, as the distance between the vehicle 102 and the object 402 continues to change over time, the vehicle 102 may at time TN implement a first candidate trajectory or a second candidate trajectory (not shown) to increase and/or decrease an amount of acceleration, braking, and/or steering to safely pass the object 402. In some examples, the object 402 may begin to diverge away from the intersection point with the vehicle 102 and/or decrease speed which may result in one of the first candidate trajectory or the second candidate trajectory for the vehicle 102 causing the vehicle 102 to overtake the object 402. Accordingly, the vehicle 102 may be associated with at least one candidate trajectory that maintains an option to yield to the object 402 and another candidate trajectory that maintains an option to overtake the object 402.”)…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with a decreasing amount of braking such as taught by Havlak with a reasonable expectation of success so as to avoid collision with other vehicles (see Havlak at least col 4 line 51 to col 5 line 6).
Regarding claim 5, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Havlak teach the method according to claim 4, further comprising:
when the second failure mode is activated (Havlak), generating a warning message and/or signal adapted to inform a driver of the host vehicle of upcoming deactivation of the adaptive cruise control system (see Oshita at least [0046] "The outputs of detectors used to realize the ACC are input to abnormality detection section 33, which detects the abnormality of each detector. For example, the detectors used to realize the ACC include the millimeter-wave radar, the camera, the laser radar (not shown), a vehicle speed sensor (not shown), and the like. An abnormality signal is output to abnormality detection section 33 when the outputs of those detectors are in a state in which the ACC cannot be normally executed (for example, when there is a failure). The abnormality signal is transmitted to ACC section 32 and vehicle-stopping control section 34." and [0052] "When an affirmative result is obtained in both of Step S13 and Step S14, in other words, when the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is equal to or less than threshold value D and the inter-vehicle distance from the leading car is on a decreasing trend, the processing transitions to Step S15. In Step S15, vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is performed and the ACC is removed. The driver is to be notified of the fact that the vehicle-stopping control by vehicle-stopping control section 34 is being performed and the ACC is removed by information output section 50.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with a decreasing amount of braking such as further taught by Havlak with a reasonable expectation of success for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Havlak teach the analogous material of claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Havlak teach the analogous material of claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Havlak teach the analogous material of claim 5 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita in view of Grelaud, and further in view of Weston (US-2016/0176403; already of record from IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the method according to claim 1. However, neither Oshita nor Grelaud explicitly disclose or teach the following:
the step of determining whether the host vehicle may be braked by at least the service brake system comprises determining whether a temperature of the service brake system is below a predefined temperature threshold.
Weston, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
the step of determining whether the host vehicle may be braked by at least the service brake system comprises determining whether a temperature of the service brake system is below a predefined temperature threshold (see Weston at least [0041] "In response to the brake temperature being greater than the threshold brake temperature, a vehicle brake temperature warning may be output for display via the user interface 60. The adaptive cruise control system of the controller 50 may also be deactivated and an adaptive cruise control system of the controller 50 warning may be output for display via the user interface 60.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with brake temperature monitoring such as taught by Weston with a reasonable expectation of success so as to prevent damage to vehicle components (see Weston at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Oshita in view of Grelaud teach the method according to claim 1. However, neither Oshita nor Grelaud explicitly disclose or teach the following:
in case it is determined that the host vehicle cannot be braked by the service brake system, deactivating the adaptive cruise control system.
Weston, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
in case it is determined that the host vehicle cannot be braked by the service brake system, deactivating the adaptive cruise control system (see Weston at least [0041] "In response to the brake temperature being greater than the threshold brake temperature, a vehicle brake temperature warning may be output for display via the user interface 60. The adaptive cruise control system of the controller 50 may also be deactivated and an adaptive cruise control system of the controller 50 warning may be output for display via the user interface 60.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the adaptive cruise control system as disclosed by Oshita with service brake functionality monitoring such as taught by Weston with a reasonable expectation of success so as to ensure proper controls may be executed without compromise (see Weston at least [0042]).
Regarding claim 17, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Weston teach the analogous material of claim 6 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Oshita in view of Grelaud and Weston teach the analogous material of claim 7 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuhlman (US-2014/0183933) teaches braking amounts in response to braking commands.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights