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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Furthermore, the claims fail to interrelate essential elements of the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an avoidance condition which is a condition satisfaction or dissatisfaction of which is determined when a position of the crossing target is a position before crossing the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and the own vehicle and the crossing target are moving, and which is satisfied when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target and a crossing target reaching predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region”. It is unclear what is meant by ”when a position of the crossing target is a position before crossing the predicted travel region of the own vehicle.” In particular, it is unclear what is meant by a location specified by “a position before crossing the predicted travel region of the own vehicle.” A position before can be located anywhere prior to crossing the predicted travel region. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will interpret an avoidance condition to be a condition that is satisfied or not satisfied based on whether the target passes the predicted travel region before the own vehicle crosses the predicted travel region.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “and which is satisfied when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target and a crossing target reaching predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region.” Examiner questions how the predicted time to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target is determined or computed because the boundaries of the predicted travel region and the predicted movement region is unclear. Examiner further questions what is meant by a crossing target reaching predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region. For the sake of examination, the Examiner will interpret the foregoing clause as an avoidance condition which is satisfied or unsatisfied based on any travel or movement region of the own vehicle and the crossing target and any predicted time of the target crossing an intersecting region of the target and the own vehicle.
Each of claims 2-8 depend on claim 1. Since claims 2-8 fail to resolve the deficiencies of claim 1, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph for the same reasons as stated above.
Appropriate amendments are required to correct the foregoing issues. Applicant is requested to provide support from the specification for any amendments made. No new matter should be added. The Examiner reserves the right to update an examination of the merits of the above claims at a future date after appropriate amendments are made by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2021/0114591).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya teaches a vehicle control device, comprising: a braking device configured to brake an own vehicle; (see Kamiya at [0053] in conjunction with Fig. 1 which discloses that the driving assistance device 31 actuates the braking devices 502 to decelerate the own vehicle, such that the own vehicle comes to rest upon the deceleration required to stop the own vehicle being achieved.)
and a control unit configured to start deceleration control of controlling the braking device such that the own vehicle decelerates when the control unit determines that a probability of collision between the own vehicle and a crossing target that is a target predicted to cross a predicted travel region of the own vehicle is high, and to finish the deceleration control when a predetermined control finish condition is satisfied during the execution of the deceleration control, (see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time to collision (TTC) using the acquired traveling states of the own vehicle and the other vehicle (at step S110). Examiner maps the CPU to the control unit. Further, see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the time to collision TTC (sec) is a time to collision with another vehicle under assumption that the own vehicle and the other vehicle continue their respective traveling states at the time of calculation and that typically, the TTC is used as a deterministic indicator for collision to determine whether to begin braking assistance for collision avoidance. Kamiya at [0044] further discloses that an intersection of paths of travel of the own vehicle and the oncoming other vehicle is calculated as a collision point K1, which is calculated according to the following equation: TTC=Dc/V0, and that here, TTC is a time to collision that is a time it takes for the own vehicle to reach the collision point K1, Dc is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the collision point K1, and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Further, see Kamiya at [0051] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time it takes for the own vehicle to stop using a current speed of the own vehicle, a delay due to jerk of the braking device 502, and a reaction delay of the driver, that is, a time it takes to achieve a required deceleration needed to stop the own vehicle. Examiner notes that achieving a required deceleration corresponds to finish the deceleration control when a predetermined control finish condition is satisfied during the execution of the deceleration control.)
wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an avoidance condition which is a condition satisfaction or dissatisfaction of which is determined when a position of the crossing target is a position before crossing the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and the own vehicle and the crossing target are moving, and which is satisfied when a predetermined condition is satisfied, the predetermined condition being set based on an own vehicle passage predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through an intersecting region between the predicted travel region of the own vehicle and a predicted movement region of the crossing target and a crossing target reaching predicted time that is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region (see Kamiya at [0053] which discloses that if determining that the condition that TTC<α and ECT<β is met (“Yes” branch of step S140), the CPU 101 determines to perform braking assistance (at step S150) and transmits a control signal to direct the driving assistance device 31 to perform braking and then, the processing routine ends. Kamiya at [0053] further discloses that the driving assistance device 31 actuates the braking devices 502 to decelerate the own vehicle, such that the own vehicle comes to rest upon the deceleration required to stop the own vehicle being achieved and that the braking assistance may include not only emergency braking intended to make a sudden stop, but also deceleration not intended to make a vehicle stop. Examiner notes that the conditions, TTC<α and ECT<β, being met corresponds to an avoidance condition satisfaction or dissatisfaction based on whether the target passes the predicted travel region before the own vehicle crosses the predicted travel region and also based on any travel or movement region of the own vehicle and the crossing target and any predicted time of the target crossing an intersecting region of the target and the own vehicle.)
Regarding claim 2, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the avoidance condition is a condition satisfied when the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time (see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the time to collision TTC (sec) is a time to collision with another vehicle under assumption that the own vehicle and the other vehicle continue their respective traveling states at the time of calculation; see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that in an alternative embodiment, taking into account a time it takes for each of the other vehicles M1, M2 to reach the collision point K1 may be calculated as an other-vehicle's arrival time, and the braking assistance may be performed if a difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time is equal to or less than a predetermined reference value. Furthermore, Kamiya at [0067] discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0. Examiner maps time TTC of the own vehicle to the own vehicle passage predicted time. Examiner maps other-vehicle’s arrival time to the crossing target reaching predicted time.)
Regarding claim 5, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 2, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed, and wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target maintains a current speed (see Kamiya at [0044] which discloses that the CPU 101 calculates a time to collision (TTC) using the acquired traveling states of the own vehicle and the other vehicle (at step S110), and that in the present embodiment where either of the own vehicle and an oncoming other vehicle makes a turn, an intersection of paths of travel of the own vehicle and the oncoming other vehicle is calculated as a collision point K1, which is calculated according to the following equation: TTC=Dc/V0, in which, TTC is a time to collision that is a time it takes for the own vehicle to reach the collision point K1, Dc is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the collision point K1, and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Examiner notes that V0 corresponds to a current speed of the own vehicle. Examiner notes that the equation provided applies for both the own vehicle and an oncoming vehicle.)
Regarding claim 6, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes an own vehicle stop condition that is satisfied when the own vehicle is stopped (see Kamiya at [0047] which discloses that the expected time to crossing ECT is a time available to stop the own vehicle without the own vehicle entering the path of travel of the other vehicle and that the expected time to crossing ECT can be used as a deterministic indicator for crossing for determining whether to begin braking assistance in order to stop the own vehicle prior to the own vehicle entering the path of travel of the other vehicle. Examiner notes that using the expected time to crossing (ECT) as a deterministic indicator to determining whether to begin braking assistance corresponds to wherein the predetermined control finish condition that includes an own vehicle stop condition that is satisfied when the own vehicle is stopped.)
Regarding claim 7, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes a crossing target passage condition that is satisfied when the crossing target has passed through the intersecting region (see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0.)
Regarding claim 8, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined control finish condition includes a crossing target stop condition that is satisfied when the crossing target stops before reaching the intersecting region (see Kamiya at [0018] which discloses a driving assistance control apparatus for a vehicle; see Kamiya at [0019] which discloses that the driving assistance control apparatus for the vehicle according to the first aspect can inhibit or prevent a collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle when the vehicle is traveling along a path of travel crossing a path of travel of the other vehicle; see Kamiya at [0056] in conjunction with Fig. 6 which discloses that if the other vehicle M1 does not stop in a situation illustrated in FIG. 6, the other vehicle M1 will collide with the own vehicle M0. Examiner notes that Kamiya at Fig. 6 depicts an accident condition when the crossing target does not stop. On the other hand, a non-accident condition would hold when the crossing target stops before reaching the intersecting region. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language in light of the specification. For example, the specification at [0082] states that when the crossing target passage condition is not satisfied, the vehicle control ECU 10 (of the own vehicle) then determines whether or not a crossing target stop condition is satisfied and that the crossing target 200 stops before reaching the intersecting region CA, and is not satisfied otherwise.)
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 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiya et al. (US 2021/0114591) in view of Jo (US 2023/0339461).
Regarding claim 3, Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the own vehicle passage predicted time is a predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed, [wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed,] (see Kamiya at [0048 - 0049] which discloses that the expected time to crossing ECT is calculated according to the following equation, ECT=Dx/V0, and that Dx is a distance (m) from the own vehicle to the expected crossing point K2 and V0 (m/s) is a speed of the own vehicle. Examiner maps expected time to crossing to the predicted time taken by the own vehicle to pass through the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the own vehicle maintains a current speed. Examiner notes that the V0 maps to the current speed of the own vehicle.
and wherein the avoidance condition is a condition satisfied when the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time (see Kamiya at [0067] which discloses that if there is a large difference between the time to collision TTC and the other-vehicle's arrival time, the own vehicle M0 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the other vehicles M1, M2, or the other vehicles M1, M2 may be capable of passing the collision point K1 without contacting the own vehicle M0 and that this can suppress the performance frequency of braking assistance and can further mitigate the driver's feeling of discomfort. Examiner notes that a large difference between the TTC of the own vehicle and the other vehicle’s arrival time corresponds to a case where the own vehicle passage predicted time is shorter than the crossing target reaching predicted time.)
Kamiya does not expressly disclose wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed, which in a related art, Jo teaches (see Jo at [0072] which discloses that the controller 60 determines positions of a host vehicle and a crossing vehicle and determines whether the crossing vehicle yields when approaching the predicted collision position by comparing a braking strategy of an intelligent driver model (IDM), which is an intelligent driver model, with an estimated acceleration value of the crossing vehicle, changes the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields and then estimates a minimum arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates and then relatively slowly decelerates for the changed response time and a maximum arrival time when the crossing vehicle travels at a constant speed for the response time and then relatively suddenly decelerates; see Jo at [0100] which discloses a response time ρ of the driver of the crossing vehicle is changed depending on the determination of whether the driver of the crossing vehicle yields, and the arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates or travels at a constant speed for the changed response time is calculated. Examiner maps crossing vehicle to the crossing target. Examiner notes that the intelligent driver model estimates an acceleration value of the crossing vehicle. Examiner notes that an estimate of an acceleration value corresponds to the crossing target executing a predetermined acceleration. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamiya to include wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from a current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes predetermined acceleration from a current speed, as taught by Jo.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow the controller to change the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields, as suggested by Jo at [0098].
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kamiya teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the crossing target reaching predicted time is a predicted time taken by the crossing target to reach the intersecting region from the current position when it is assumed that the crossing target executes acceleration at a predetermined acceleration and a predetermined acceleration gradient from the current speed (see Jo at [0072] which discloses that the controller 60 determines positions of a host vehicle and a crossing vehicle and determines whether the crossing vehicle yields when approaching the predicted collision position by comparing a braking strategy of an intelligent driver model (IDM), which is an intelligent driver model, with an estimated acceleration value of the crossing vehicle, changes the response time of the driver of the crossing vehicle depending on whether the crossing vehicle yields and then estimates a minimum arrival time when the crossing vehicle accelerates and then relatively slowly decelerates for the changed response time and a maximum arrival time when the crossing vehicle travels at a constant speed for the response time and then relatively suddenly decelerates. Examiner notes that the crossing target accelerating and then slowing decelerating when traveling at a constant speed creates a predetermined acceleration gradient at the current speed.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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, Kito Robinson, can be reached on 571-270-3921. 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, 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.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664