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 (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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is formatted as a single paragraph. Examiner recommends formatting claim 1 with line indentations between elements for clarity.
Claim 5, Lines 8-13 is formatted as a single paragraph. Examiner recommends formatting this with line indentations between elements for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
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;
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
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) include:
control unit (“…configured to…”) in claims 1-4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
Support for the limitation(s) are as follows:
Paragraph 0007: “An aspect of the present disclosure provides a travel control device (100) for a vehicle, including a control unit (drive assist electronic control unit (ECU) 10)”
Paragraphs 0022-0023: “As shown in FIG. 1, a travel control device 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is applied to a vehicle 102 and includes a drive assist ECU 10…ECU means an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) including a microcomputer as a main part. The vehicle 102 is referred to as a host vehicle 102 as necessary in order to distinguish it from other vehicles. A microcomputer of each ECU includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a readable and writable non-volatile memory (N/M), an interface (I/F), and the like”
Thus, the examiner is interpreting the claim limitation as follows:
ECU, CPU, microcomputer, microprocessor, processor, and/or the like.
If the 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa (US20250214599A1, foreign priority to Dec. 28, 2023; hereinafter Oniwa) in view of Urano et al. (US20180148054A1; hereinafter Urano).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Oniwa discloses a vehicle control unit configured to dynamically adjust the conditions for performing collision avoidance override (see at least Abstract) comprising:
A travel control device for a vehicle, including a control unit configured to execute (Figure 1 and Paragraph 0032, “FIG. 1 is a configuration diagram of a vehicle (hereinafter referred to as a host vehicle M) in which a vehicle control device of an embodiment is mounted”),
when it is determined that there is a risk that a host vehicle collides against a control object that is present ahead of the host vehicle in an advancing direction (Paragraph 0056, “…the contact possibility determiner 120 determines whether there is a possibility of contact between the host vehicle M and another vehicle on the basis of a contact margin value with another vehicle (a preceding vehicle) that is present in front of the host vehicle M on the basis of the surrounding conditions”; Examiner notes that a “control object” is being interpreted as any obstacle, which is consistent with Paragraph 0033 of the instant specification),
risk reduction control to reduce such a risk (Paragraphs 0065-0071 describe risk reduction controls (e.g. “avoidance controls”) to reduce the possibility of colliding with another vehicle (“…the vehicle controller 140 performs warning control and avoidance control to avoid contact between the host vehicle M and an obstacle through control by the braking controller 142 and the steering controller 144…The contact avoidance braking controller 142B performs emergency brake control to avoid contact between the host vehicle M and an obstacle…When the contact possibility determiner 120 determines that there is a possibility of contact between the host vehicle M and an obstacle, the contact avoidance steering controller 144B generates a target trajectory (an avoidance target trajectory) for avoiding contact, and executes steering control related to the avoidance steering assistance so that the host vehicle M travels along the generated target trajectory”)) and
execute override control to suppress execution of the risk reduction control based on a driving operation by a driver of the host vehicle (Paragraph 0072 describes override control (e.g. “stop control”) to prevent the vehicle from performing the collision avoidance controls (“The stop controller 146 determines whether to execute the stop control (override determination) according to a driving operation of the driver (an operation of the driver) while the braking control described above (the gradual deceleration control or the contact avoidance braking control) or the steering control (the centering steering control or the contact avoidance steering control) is executed”)),
wherein the control unit is configured to perform at least one of making the risk reduction control more likely to be executed and making the override control less likely to be executed (Paragraph 0092 describes making the override control less likely to be performed when a predetermined condition is met (“…the stop controller 146 suppresses the execution of the stop control to stop the driver steering assistance control when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the driver steering assistance”)).
However, Oniwa does not explicitly recite that such a predetermined condition comprises the situation: when it is determined that a careless start in which the host vehicle is started by being induced by a start of another vehicle that is present in an adjacent lane has been performed in spite of presence of a preceding vehicle in a stationary state ahead of the host vehicle in a host vehicle’s lane.
Nevertheless, Urano teaches a vehicle control device (see at least Abstract) configured to at least recognize such a situation:
when it is determined that a careless start in which the host vehicle is started by being induced by a start of another vehicle that is present in an adjacent lane has been performed in spite of presence of a preceding vehicle in a stationary state ahead of the host vehicle in a host vehicle’s lane (Claim 1, “determine, when it is determined that the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle are stationary, whether one of conditions is satisfied, the conditions including (i) a first condition for determining, based on the surrounding environment, that an adjacent vehicle has started, the adjacent vehicle being another vehicle stationary adjacent to the host vehicle in an adjacent lane adjacent to a traveling lane in which the host vehicle travels…start the host vehicle by using the actuator when at least one of the first condition, second condition, and third condition is satisfied”; Examiner notes that starting a host vehicle when an adjacent vehicle has started reasonably includes determining that the host vehicle started when an adjacent vehicle has started).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Oniwa invention to expand the predetermined conditions for recognizing inattentive driving (Paragraphs 0106-0107 describe predetermined conditions including indications that a driver is unprepared for a maneuver) and features for recognizing surrounding traffic (Paragraphs 0053-0055, “The recognizer 110 recognizes the surrounding conditions…”) to include recognition of stop-and-go situations, as taught by Urano, for the benefit of improving safety in traffic situations where inattentive driving is well-known to occur (e.g. stop-and-go situations).
Regarding Claim 3, Oniwa as currently modified teaches claim 1. Oniwa further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to make the override control less likely to be executed when it is determined that the careless start has been performed, by tightening a condition to execute the override control as compared with when it is not determined that the careless start has been performed (Paragraphs 0092-0097 describe adjusting the conditions used to trigger override control (“…making the speed override threshold value (the second threshold value) larger than the speed override threshold value under normal circumstances by a predetermined amount…”) to make override control (“stop control”) less likely to be performed when a predetermined condition is met (“…to make it difficult to execute the stop control”); Examiner notes that “tightening a condition” is being interpreted as adjusting a condition to restrict execution of override control, which is consistent with the closest support found in Paragraph 0015 of the instant specification).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa in view of Urano and Baba et al. (US20190073903A1; hereinafter Baba).
Regarding Claim 2, Oniwa as currently modified teaches claim 1. Oniwa does not explicitly recite: wherein the control unit is configured to make the risk reduction control more likely to be executed when it is determined that the careless start has been performed, by relaxing a condition to execute the risk reduction control as compared with when it is not determined that the careless start has been performed,
Nevertheless, Baba teaches a collision avoidance system (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the control unit is configured to make the risk reduction control more likely to be executed when it is determined that the careless start has been performed, by relaxing a condition to execute the risk reduction control as compared with when it is not determined that the careless start has been performed (Paragraph 0044 describes adjusting the conditions used to trigger override control (“The collision avoidance control unit 28…relaxes the operational condition of the collision avoidance process”) to make risk reduction control (“collision avoidance”) more likely to be performed when a predetermined condition is met (“…makes the collision avoidance process more likely to be performed”); Examiner notes that “relaxing a condition” is being interpreted as adjusting a condition to loosen the restrictions against performing risk reduction control, which is consistent with the closest support found in Paragraph 0013 of the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Oniwa invention to expand the features for adjusting conditions to make override less likely to be performed (Paragraphs 0092-0097) to include features for adjusting conditions to make collision avoidance more likely to be performed, as taught by Baba, for the benefit of proactively increasing safety measures in risky traffic situations (Baba, Abstract and Paragraph 0044).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oniwa in view of Urano, Kobayashi et al. (US20100324823A1; hereinafter Kobayashi) and Toshiaki et al. (JP2005247143A, citations refer to attached English translation; hereinafter Toshiaki).
Regarding Claim 4, Oniwa as modified teaches claim 1. Oniwa does not explicitly recite: wherein the control unit is configured to determine, in a situation where a first condition that a stopped preceding vehicle is present ahead within a range of a first distance from the host vehicle in the host vehicle’s lane, a second condition that another vehicle that has been stopped ahead within a range of a second distance from the host vehicle in an adjacent lane has started, and a third condition that there is no possibility that the host vehicle makes a lane change out of the host vehicle’s lane are met that the careless start has been performed when the host vehicle starts within a reference time since the second condition is met.
Nevertheless, Urano further teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to determine, in a situation where a first condition that a stopped preceding vehicle is present ahead within a range of a first distance from the host vehicle in the host vehicle’s lane, a second condition that another vehicle that has been stopped ahead within a range of a second distance from the host vehicle in an adjacent lane has started (Claim 1 describes a first condition of identifying a stopped preceding vehicle (“determine, when it is determined that the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle are stationary… ) and a second condition of identifying that a vehicle in an adjacent lane has started (“…determining, based on the surrounding environment, that an adjacent vehicle has started”); Examiner notes that detected vehicles are necessarily within a range (e.g. a detection range) of the sensors (see also Paragraph 0076)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Oniwa invention to expand the features for recognizing surrounding traffic (Paragraphs 0053-0055) to include recognizing whether a leading vehicle is stationary and whether an adjacent vehicle has started, as taught by Urano, for the benefit of recognizing a surrounding environment during stop-and-go situations (Urano, Paragraphs 0011-0013).
However, Oniwa as modified still does not explicitly teach: a third condition that there is no possibility that the host vehicle makes a lane change out of the host vehicle’s lane are met, that the careless start has been performed when the host vehicle starts within a reference time since the second condition is met (Examiner notes that “no possibility” is being interpreted as the host vehicle not intending to changing lanes, which is consistent with its description in Paragraph 0062 of the instant specification (which describes the determination as being based on whether a winker/turn signal is not on, steering angle is less than a threshold, etc.)).
Nevertheless, Kobayashi teaches features for collision avoidance based on driver intention (see at least Abstract) configured to determine:
a third condition that there is no possibility that the host vehicle makes a lane change out of the host vehicle’s lane are met (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0057 describes determining that a host vehicle does not intend to change lanes (“In step S3502, braking/drive force controller 8 determines whether the driver intends to change to the adjacent lane…If a direction indicating operation by the direction indicating switch 20 has not occurred, it is determined that the driver does not intend to change lanes, and the flow goes to step S3506”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Oniwa invention to expand the features for recognizing whether a vehicle intends to change lanes (Paragraph 0053, “The “states” of the object may include the acceleration or jerk of the object, or an “action state” (for example, whether the object is changing lanes or is about to change lanes)”) to include determining whether a host vehicle intends to change lanes, as taught by Kobayashi, for the benefit of determining whether collision avoidance is necessary (Kobayashi, Paragraph 0006).
However, Oniwa as modified still does not explicitly teach determining: that the careless start has been performed when the host vehicle starts within a reference time since the second condition is met (Examiner notes that the limitation is being interpreted as when the host vehicle starts within a reference time after the second condition is met, which is consistent with Paragraph 0081 of the instant specification (“…starts within the reference period after the second condition is satisfied”)).
Nevertheless, Toshiaki teaches features for determining whether another vehicle has started moving during stop-and-go situations (see at least Paragraph 0004) including recognition:
that the careless start has been performed when the host vehicle starts within a reference time since the second condition is met (Paragraph 0016 describes determining whether or not a host vehicle has started within a reference time after another vehicle has started (“…determined if the vehicle does not start within a predetermined time after the start or end of notification by the notification means, while the notification means notifies the driver that the preceding vehicle has started”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Oniwa invention to expand the features for recognizing surrounding traffic (Paragraphs 0053-0055) to include recognizing whether or not a host vehicle has started within a predetermined time after another vehicle started, as taught by Toshiaki, for the well-known benefit of determining whether a driver is distracted based on their reaction time to other vehicles during stop-and-go situations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669