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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action filed 02/20/2026, Applicant Amended Claims 1, 7, 14, and cancelled claims 12-13. Claims 1-11 and 14 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, regarding applicants argument “Miyahara fails to cure the deficiencies of Gokan. Miyahara discloses that, when a driver strongly and deeply depresses an accelerator pedal 13 for a predetermined period of time (i.e., "many time"), and when an accelerator pedal incorrect operation judgment device 8 detects the depression of the accelerator pedal 13 as an incorrect (or unintended) operation of the accelerator pedal 13 by the driver, the in-vehicle system 100 informs the driver of the incorrect operation. See Miyahara, paragraphs [0008], [0033], [0134], and [0137]. For example, the in-vehicle system 100 provides the driver with a warning A ("Pip, Pip, Pip, ... " and "Depress the accelerator pedal slowly"). See Miyahara, paragraphs [0137], [0141], and [0142]. In other words, when the accelerator pedal 13 is depressed strongly and deeply by the driver, the device 8 interprets the depression as an "accelerator pedal misapplication," and a "warning" is issued to depress the accelerator pedal 13 slowly. Therefore, the driver of Miyahara is merely instructed or "warned" to depress the accelerator pedal 13 in response to a "misapplication." There is no disclosure in Miyahara regarding giving a warning related to braking operation. Further, the "warning" in Miyahara is not performed in response to limited "driving force" or "braking control," merely to inform the driver of these vehicle controlled actions happening, as claimed. Therefore, Miyahara does not disclose performing a warning to notify the driver "when the driving force of the vehicle is limited" and "when the braking control is performed," as claimed. It follows that Miyahara fails to teach or suggest at least the aforementioned limitations of claims 1 and 7. “; Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument “Further, the "warning" in Miyahara is not performed in response to limited "driving force" or "braking control," merely to inform the driver of these vehicle controlled actions happening, as claimed.” it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in response to) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument Therefore, Miyahara does not disclose performing a warning to notify the driver "when the driving force of the vehicle is limited" and "when the braking control is performed," as claimed.”; as previously indicated (page 10) “Miyahara teaches: performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited (Fig. 6, S460-S480; ¶0078 and ¶0096) in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)”. With respect to S460-S480, Miyahara further states “As described above, the conflict control device 9 allows the motor vehicle 10 to slightly move to the forward movement direction and to be stopped in step S335 and step S340 (see step S480 shown in FIG. 6) when the driver of the motor vehicle 10 causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 13, that is, when the driver deeply or strongly depresses the accelerator pedal 13 of the motor vehicle 10, for example, many time. (see step S460 shown in FIG. 6).” (¶0113). In other words, in response to a determination that the driver causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal (Fig. 6, S460), driving force is limited (i.e. as described in S335), braking control is performed (i.e. as described in S340), and a warning is issued to the driver (S480, i.e. a display or sound) in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gokan et al. (U.S. 20150307091A1) in view of Miyahara (U.S. 2012/0191313A1). Miyahara discloses “The present invention relates to in-vehicle systems for detecting driver's unintended behavior or incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal of a motor vehicle, and for controlling the movement of the motor vehicle stably.” (¶0003).
Regarding Claim 1, Gokan discloses: A vehicle pedal misapplication safety assist system (Fig. 1 and 3), the system comprising:
an obstacle detection sensor (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034) that is mounted in a vehicle to detect an obstacle (Fig. 2, obstacle) within a reference distance (Fig. 5, ¶0067; “FIG. 7 is a view illustrative of an example of the decision level determination threshold. In FIG. 7, a numerical unit is centimeter (cm). In the present embodiment, it is configured that the threshold TH13=350 cm, the threshold TH23=200 cm, the threshold TH33=300 cm, and the threshold TH43=200 cm.”; also Fig. 7);
an accelerator pedal sensor (Fig. 3, acceleration manipulation detection sensor 6) that detects a depression amount of an accelerator pedal;
a vehicle controller (Fig. 3, controller 10) configured to perform control for limiting a driving force of the vehicle (Fig. 11, S280) when a determination is made that the detected obstacle is within the reference distance (Yes to S230 or S250 corresponding to distance thresholds shown for Lv1, LV2, LV3 decision basis; Fig. 13) and the depression amount of the accelerator pedal is detected (Fig. 13, accelerator opening degree greater than 0%, e.g. “50%”; ¶0090, Fig. 4 S180), based on a detection signal of the obstacle detection sensor (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034) and a detection signal of the accelerator pedal sensor (Fig. 3, acceleration manipulation detection sensor 6);
and a brake controller configured to perform braking control according to a command from the vehicle controller when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and the distance to the detected obstacle reaches a braking setting distance. (Fig. 13; “In this manner, when it is determined that the decision level of the obstacle is Lv3, the throttle opening degree is limited to 0%, and in addition, the brake force corresponding to 0.25 G is generated. Further, when the vehicle MM approaches at a short distance (less than 50 cm) from the obstacle, the brake force corresponding to 0.5 G is generated.”; ¶0135)
Gokan further discloses wherein the vehicle controller is further configured to perform a warning to notify of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication through a vehicle cluster or a display (¶0042; “the vehicle MM includes an information presentation device, not illustrated. The information presentation device is configured to output a warning or another presentation in a sound or image in response to a control signal from the travel controller 10. The information presentation device is configured to include, for example, a speaker to provide information to a driver in a buzzer or voice, and a display unit to provide information by presenting an image or text. The display unit may also use a display monitor of the navigation device 26.”)
However, Gokan does not explicitly disclose performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed
Miyahara teaches: performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed (Fig. 6, S460-S480; ¶0078 and ¶0096; With respect to S460-S480, Miyahara further states “As described above, the conflict control device 9 allows the motor vehicle 10 to slightly move to the forward movement direction and to be stopped in step S335 and step S340 (see step S480 shown in FIG. 6) when the driver of the motor vehicle 10 causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 13, that is, when the driver deeply or strongly depresses the accelerator pedal 13 of the motor vehicle 10, for example, many time. (see step S460 shown in FIG. 6).” (¶0113). In other words, in response to a determination that the driver causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal (Fig. 6, S460), driving force is limited (i.e. as described in S335), braking control is performed (i.e. as described in S340), and a warning is issued to the driver (S480, i.e. a display or sound) in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle driving force limiting system of Goken to incorporate the teachings of Miyahara to include performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)
Regarding Claims 2, Gokan further discloses: wherein the obstacle detection sensor comprises ultrasonic sensors mounted at front and rear positions of the vehicle (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034)
Regarding Claim 3 and 9, Gokan further discloses wherein the vehicle controller determines that there is the depression amount of the accelerator due to driver misapplication when a determination is made that the detected obstacle is within the reference distance (Fig. 13, obstacle detected), and when the depression amount of the accelerator pedal is within a set time or continues at 10 to 90% for a set time, based on the detection signal of the accelerator pedal sensor (Fig. 4, S180; ¶0089-0090, “In step S180, the acceleration suppression activation determination unit 10G determines whether or not the accelerator manipulation amount acquired in step S170 is equal to or larger than a predefined accelerator manipulation amount threshold. Herein, the accelerator manipulation amount threshold is set to, for example, a manipulation amount corresponding to 50% the accelerator opening degree of the accelerator pedal 19.”; Fig. 13 Accelerator opening degree continues larger than preset threshold for predetermined time)
Regarding Claim 4, Gokan further discloses: further comprising: an engine controller configured to perform control for limiting an engine torque (¶0030; “The drive device is configured to include an engine 15 as a drive source, and an engine controller 16 configured to control the torque (drive force) generated by the engine 15 to a value depending on an acceleration instruction value.”) to a creep torque corresponding to 0% of the depression amount of the accelerator pedal (¶0109; “To be specific, the acceleration suppression amount is operated such that the throttle opening degree (acceleration instruction value) is not larger than a second limit value (for example, 0%) based on the accelerator manipulation amount acquired in the above step S220.”) according to a command (Fig. 11, S280) from the vehicle controller to limit the driving force of the vehicle
Regarding Claim 5, Gokan further discloses: a motor controller configured to perform control for limiting a motor torque (“The drive device is configured to include an engine 15 as a drive source, and an engine controller 16 configured to control the torque (drive force) generated by the engine 15 to a value depending on an acceleration instruction value. It is to be noted that the drive source of the drive device is not limited to the engine 15, and may be an electric motor, or may have a hybrid configuration in which a motor is combined with the engine 15.”) to a creep torque corresponding to 0% of the depression amount of the accelerator pedal (¶0109; “To be specific, the acceleration suppression amount is operated such that the throttle opening degree (acceleration instruction value) is not larger than a second limit value (for example, 0%) based on the accelerator manipulation amount acquired in the above step S220.”) according to a command (Fig. 11, S280) from the vehicle controller to limit the driving force of the vehicle
Regarding Claim 6, Gokan further discloses wherein the vehicle controller releases the control for limiting the driving force of the vehicle and the braking control when a brake pedal depression amount detection signal is received from a brake pedal sensor (Fig. 4, S160 to S145; ¶0088)
Regarding Claim 7, Gokan discloses A vehicle pedal misapplication safety assist method (Fig. 4-5, 11-12), the method comprising:
Detecting, by an obstacle (Fig. 2, obstacle) detection sensor (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034); within a reference distance (Fig. 5, ¶0067; “FIG. 7 is a view illustrative of an example of the decision level determination threshold. In FIG. 7, a numerical unit is centimeter (cm). In the present embodiment, it is configured that the threshold TH13=350 cm, the threshold TH23=200 cm, the threshold TH33=300 cm, and the threshold TH43=200 cm.”; also Fig. 7) from a vehicle,
detecting by an accelerator pedal sensor (Fig. 3, acceleration manipulation detection sensor 6) a depression amount of an accelerator pedal (Fig. 4, S180),; performing control for limiting a driving force (Fig. 11, S280) of the vehicle when a determination is made that the detected obstacle is within the reference distance (Yes to S230 or S250 corresponding to distance thresholds shown for Lv1, LV2, LV3 decision basis; Fig. 13) and the depression amount of the accelerator pedal is detected (Fig. 13, accelerator opening degree greater than 0%, e.g. “50%”; ¶0090, Fig. 4 S180), based on a detection signal of the obstacle detection sensor (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034) and a detection signal of the accelerator pedal sensor (Fig. 3, acceleration manipulation detection sensor 6);, performing, by a brake controller (Fig. 1 and 3, controller 10);
and performing braking control according to a command from the vehicle controller when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and the distance to the detected obstacle reaches a braking setting distance, (Fig. 13; “In this manner, when it is determined that the decision level of the obstacle is Lv3, the throttle opening degree is limited to 0%, and in addition, the brake force corresponding to 0.25 G is generated. Further, when the vehicle MM approaches at a short distance (less than 50 cm) from the obstacle, the brake force corresponding to 0.5 G is generated.”; ¶0135).
Gokan further discloses and performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication through a vehicle cluster or a display (¶0042; “the vehicle MM includes an information presentation device, not illustrated. The information presentation device is configured to output a warning or another presentation in a sound or image in response to a control signal from the travel controller 10. The information presentation device is configured to include, for example, a speaker to provide information to a driver in a buzzer or voice, and a display unit to provide information by presenting an image or text. The display unit may also use a display monitor of the navigation device 26.”)
However, Gokan does not explicitly disclose performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed
Miyahara teaches: performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed (Fig. 6, S460-S480; ¶0078 and ¶0096; With respect to S460-S480, Miyahara further states “As described above, the conflict control device 9 allows the motor vehicle 10 to slightly move to the forward movement direction and to be stopped in step S335 and step S340 (see step S480 shown in FIG. 6) when the driver of the motor vehicle 10 causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 13, that is, when the driver deeply or strongly depresses the accelerator pedal 13 of the motor vehicle 10, for example, many time. (see step S460 shown in FIG. 6).” (¶0113). In other words, in response to a determination that the driver causes incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal (Fig. 6, S460), driving force is limited (i.e. as described in S335), braking control is performed (i.e. as described in S340), and a warning is issued to the driver (S480, i.e. a display or sound) in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)”.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to have modified the vehicle driving force limiting system of Goken to incorporate the teachings of Miyahara to include performing, by the vehicle controller, a warning to notify through a vehicle cluster or a display of a possibility of accelerator pedal misapplication when the driving force of the vehicle is limited and when the braking control is performed in order to “to quickly inform to the driver the occurrence of incorrect operation of the accelerator pedal 1” (¶0134)
Regarding Claim 8, Gokan further discloses wherein the obstacle detection sensor comprises an ultrasonic sensor that detects the obstacle detection signal within the reference distance to the vehicle controller (Fig. 1, “ four sonars 1a to 1d are arranged at the front side and the rear side of the vehicle MM”; ¶0034)
Regarding Claim 10, Gokan further discloses wherein performing control for limiting the driving force for the vehicle comprises performing, under the control of an engine controller, control for limiting an engine torque (¶0030; “The drive device is configured to include an engine 15 as a drive source, and an engine controller 16 configured to control the torque (drive force) generated by the engine 15 to a value depending on an acceleration instruction value.”) to a creep torque corresponding to 0% of the depression amount of the accelerator pedal (¶0109; “To be specific, the acceleration suppression amount is operated such that the throttle opening degree (acceleration instruction value) is not larger than a second limit value (for example, 0%) based on the accelerator manipulation amount acquired in the above step S220.”) according to a command (Fig. 11, S280) from the vehicle controller to limit the driving force of the vehicle
Regarding Claim 11, wherein performing control for limiting the driving force for the vehicle comprises performing, under the control of an motor controller, control for limiting a motor torque (“The drive device is configured to include an engine 15 as a drive source, and an engine controller 16 configured to control the torque (drive force) generated by the engine 15 to a value depending on an acceleration instruction value. It is to be noted that the drive source of the drive device is not limited to the engine 15, and may be an electric motor, or may have a hybrid configuration in which a motor is combined with the engine 15.”) to a creep torque corresponding to 0% of the depression amount of the accelerator pedal (¶0109; “To be specific, the acceleration suppression amount is operated such that the throttle opening degree (acceleration instruction value) is not larger than a second limit value (for example, 0%) based on the accelerator manipulation amount acquired in the above step S220.”) according to a command (Fig. 11, S280) from the vehicle controller to limit the driving force of the vehicle
Regarding Claim 14, Gokan further discloses releasing, by the vehicle controller, the control for limiting the driving force of the vehicle and the braking control when a brake pedal depression amount detection signal is received from a brake pedal sensor (Fig. 4, S160 to S145; ¶0088)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (U.S. 5193640) discloses “The present invention aims at more effective means of controlling unintended acceleration due to pedal misapplication. During normal driving, a driver modulates the pressure on the accelerator pedal to control the engine speed. In most passenger vehicles, only relatively light pressure on the accelerator is needed to open the throttle fully. However, when the driver mistakes the accelerator pedal for the brake, causing unintended acceleration, he depresses the accelerator pedal as hard as possible in a desperate attempt to bring the vehicle to a stop. In normally equiped vehicles, it causes the vehicle only to accelerate at a maxiumum rate, eventually causing an accident. The important observation to be made is that during the unintended acceleration, the driver depresses the accelerator pedal much harder than under normal driving conditions, because he thinks it is the brake. In the present invention, such an excessive pressure on the accelerator pedal is exploited to reduce the engine speed and/or to apply the brakes, so that the accelerator pedal acts as a brake when the driver mistakes it for the brake.” (Col. 2 lines 3-23).
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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.
/BRIAN R KIRBY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights