DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/976,765 filed on December 11, 2024 in which claims 1-5 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), and claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 11, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are independent claims including the preamble reciting a “vehicle control device capable of applying a one pedal control mode that can execute acceleration of a vehicle as well as deceleration of the vehicle by braking according to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal, and applying a speed control mode that automatically controls a speed of the vehicle.” When evaluating a claim’s preamble, it must be determined whether or not the preamble limits the structure of the invention or recites the purpose or intended use of the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02. In the present instance, the “vehicle control device” is expressly stated to be “a computer program,” and, thus, does not indicate any physical structure. (Spec. ¶ 26). Further, the recitations that the vehicle control device is ”capable” of performing functions appears to recite the purpose of the invention does not place structural requirements on the invention. Therefore, the preamble of these claims shall not be accorded any patentable weight.
Claim 3 includes the limitation “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value in accordance with a shape or a condition of a road on which the vehicle is traveling in the deceleration limit period.” (Emphasis added). It is the examiner’s duty to give claims “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In accordance with the specification ¶ 49, the term “shape” shall be interpreted as the geometric shape of the road (e.g., a curve) and not as a synonym for the condition of the road (e.g., the road is in good shape). If this is not Applicant’s intended interpretation, the examiner recommends amending the claim to better define the desired interpretation.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value according to a reason for cancel when the speed control mode is canceled” is grammatically incorrect and confusing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitation “a processor configured to set, when the speed control mode is canceled while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied, a first absolute value of deceleration or a first deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode in a predetermined deceleration limit period from a timing when the speed control mode is canceled, to be smaller than a second absolute value of deceleration or a second deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the same operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode other than the deceleration limit period.” (Emphasis added).
This is subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations due to the use of the qualifier “absolute.”
First, these may be interpreted as “a first absolute value of deceleration or a first absolute deceleration change rate” and “a second absolute value of deceleration or a second absolute deceleration change rate.” Under this interpretation, the “absolute” qualifier is based to both options on the list and, based on the examiner’s reading of the present specification appears to be the intended interpretation.
Second, these may be interpreted as “a first absolute value of deceleration or a first relative or absolute deceleration change rate” and “a second absolute value of deceleration or a second relative or absolute deceleration change rate.” This is the interpretation of the claim as written. Under this interpretation, if a value of deceleration is used, it must be absolute, but if a deceleration change rate is used, it need not be an absolute value. This interpretation, however, would allow for situations in which the opposite change rate is used, resulting in counterintuitive results. For example, the first deceleration rate of change could be set to accelerate (i.e., a negative deceleration rate of change) while the second deceleration rate of change could be to decelerate (i.e., a positive deceleration rage of change), because a negative value is always “smaller than” a positive value. However, such a result would not be possible if the “value of deceleration” was used instead of the deceleration change rate, leading to potentially conflicting results.
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, these claims depend from claim 1 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ozaki, US Publication 2011/0066342 (hereinafter Ozaki).
Regarding claim 4, Ozaki discloses a vehicle control device capable of applying a one pedal control mode that can execute acceleration of a vehicle as well as deceleration of the vehicle by braking according to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal.” (Ozaki ¶ 3). Additionally, Ozaki discloses “applying a speed control mode that automatically controls a speed of the vehicle” (Ozaki ¶ 28) by performing a brake control, which “automatically control[s] the speed of the vehicle” (Spec. ¶ 3) by decelerating the vehicle. Finally, Ozaki discloses the vehicle control device “comprising: a processor configured to cancel the one pedal control mode when the speed control mode is further applied while the one pedal control mode is applied” (Ozaki ¶ 33) here the one-pedal-running-mode control is immediately stopped when the brake is manipulated.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al., US Publication 2018/0319397 (hereinafter Ohta).
Regarding claim 1, Ohta discloses a vehicle control device capable of applying a one pedal control mode that can execute acceleration of a vehicle as well as deceleration of the vehicle by braking according to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal.” (Ohta ¶ 48). Additionally, Ohta discloses “applying a speed control mode that automatically controls a speed of the vehicle.” (Ohta ¶ 43). Finally, Ohta discloses the vehicle control device “comprising: a processor configured to set, when the speed control mode is canceled while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied, a first absolute value of deceleration or a first deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode in a predetermined deceleration limit period from a timing when the speed control mode is canceled, [and] a second absolute value of deceleration or a second deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the same operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode other than the deceleration limit period.”
Ohta discloses a CPU (i.e., a processor, Ohta ¶ 37) that sets a “corrected ITS braking/driving force” (i.e., a value of deceleration, Ohta ¶¶ 397-398 and Fig. 16, Steps 208-210) in the event that a “Dr override” is established. (Ohta ¶ 391 and Fig. 16, Step 204). Mathematically, all values have an “absolute value.” A “Dr override” is when the driver establishes a control right over the vehicle (i.e., a speed control mode is canceled, Ohta ¶ 110). Moreover, Ohta discloses that the entirety of Fig. 16 occurs at step S104 of Fig. 15A (Ohta ¶ 387), which is shown to occur during “One Pedal Mode.” (Ohta Fig. 15A, see also ¶ 352). Thus, Ohta sets the corrected ITS braking/driving force “when the speed control mode is canceled while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied.” Because this only occurs after the override is established it is “from a timing when the speed control mode is canceled,” as claimed.
Likewise, Ohta discloses that when an override is not established, a different ITS braking signal is output (i.e., set) based on “the driver request breaking force” (Ohta ¶¶ 398-399 and Fig. 16, Steps 212-214), which, again, has an “absolute value.” It should also be noted that the use of antecedent basis for “the driving request breaking force” indicates that this would be the same amount of the driver request breaking force referenced in Ohta ¶ 397.Thus, this is a “second absolute value of deceleration” that is generated “in response to the same operation amount of the acceleration pedal in accordance with one pedal control mode other than the deceleration limit period.”
Ohta does not disclose what the first and second deceleration values are and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “a processor configured to set, when the speed control mode is canceled while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied, a first absolute value of deceleration or a first deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode in a predetermined deceleration limit period from a timing when the speed control mode is canceled, to be smaller than a second absolute value of deceleration or a second deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the same operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode other than the deceleration limit period.”
However, the motivation/rationale for modifying the setting to set the first deceleration value to be smaller than the second value would have been that such a modification is obvious to try. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(E). At the time of invention, there was a recognized problem or need in the art, namely decelerating a vehicle in one-pedal mode after exiting a speed control mode by slowing the vehicle at a rate different from what would normally be used based on the amount of force on the pedal. Further, there were only two identified, predictable potential solutions: the first deceleration value is smaller than the second deceleration value or that the first deceleration is larger than the second deceleration value. It should be noted that it would not be a potential solution to set the first and second deceleration values to be the same because that would not solve the recognized problem. One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because such a modification would improve user experience by removing “jerk” from the deceleration in instances in which no immediate danger was detected that would necessitate a sudden stop.
Therefore, Ohta at least suggests the claimed limitation “a processor configured to set, when the speed control mode is canceled while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied, a first absolute value of deceleration or a first deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode in a predetermined deceleration limit period from a timing when the speed control mode is canceled, to be smaller than a second absolute value of deceleration or a second deceleration change rate of the vehicle generated in response to the same operation amount of the accelerator pedal in accordance with the one pedal control mode other than the deceleration limit period,” rendering it obvious.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Otake, US Publication 2017/0232973 (hereinafter Otake).
Regarding claim 2, Ohta discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ohta does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value according to a reason for cancel when the speed control mode is canceled.”
However, Otake discloses a vehicle capable of operating in “one pedal mode” and “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value according to a reason for cancel when the speed control mode is canceled” (Otake ¶¶ 129, 132) where the ECU detects that the driver is in an “abnormal” state as the reason for overriding and sets the accelerator operation accordingly.
Ohta and Otake are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicles operating using a one pedal control mode.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ohta and Otake before him or her to modify setting of the deceleration values of Ohta to include the setting based on the reason to cancel the speed control mode of Otake.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Ohta teaches the “base device” for controlling a vehicle deceleration when exiting a speed control mode. Further, Otake teaches the “known technique” for setting a deceleration rate based on a reason for exiting the speed control mode that is applicable to the base device of Ohta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al., US Publication 2019/0291728 (hereinafter Shalev-Shwartz).
Regarding claim 3, Ohta discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Ohta does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value in accordance with a shape or a condition of a road on which the vehicle is traveling in the deceleration limit period.”
However, Shalev-Shwartz discloses “wherein the processor sets the first deceleration change rate or the first absolute value in accordance with a shape or a condition of a road on which the vehicle is traveling in the deceleration limit period” (Shalev-Shwartz ¶ 407) by disclosing that it is well-known in the art to use a road condition when setting a maximum acceleration value. Acceleration is merely a negative deceleration value.
Ohta and Shalev-Shwartz are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ohta and Shalev-Shwartz before him or her to modify the deceleration value setting of Ohta to include the consideration of the road condition when setting a deceleration value of Shalev-Shwartz.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Ohta teaches the “base device” for controlling vehicle deceleration values. Further, Shalev-Shwartz teaches the “known technique” controlling vehicle deceleration based on the condition of a road that is applicable to the base device of Ohta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Naito, US Publication 2024/0182029 (hereinafter Naito).
Regarding claim 5, Ohta discloses a vehicle control device capable of applying a one pedal control mode that can execute acceleration of a vehicle as well as deceleration of the vehicle by braking according to an operation amount of an accelerator pedal.” (Ohta ¶ 48). Additionally, Ohta discloses “applying a speed control mode that automatically controls a speed of the vehicle.” (Ohta ¶ 43). Finally, Ohta discloses the vehicle control device “comprising: a processor configured to: determine whether or not a cancellation condition for canceling the speed control mode is satisfied while the one pedal control mode and the speed control mode are applied” (Ohta ¶¶ 37, 391, 397-398, and Fig. 16) by disclosing a CPU (i.e., a processor, Ohta ¶ 37) that sets a “corrected ITS braking/driving force” (i.e., a value of deceleration, Ohta ¶¶ 397-398 and Fig. 16, Steps 208-210) in the event that a “Dr override” is established. (Ohta ¶ 391 and Fig. 16, Step 204).
Ohta does not appear to explicitly disclose “notify a driver via a notification device provided in an interior of the vehicle that the one pedal control mode is being applied before the speed control mode is canceled, when the cancellation condition is satisfied.”
However, Naito discloses a vehicle control device configured to “notify a driver via a notification device provided in an interior of the vehicle that the non-autonomous mode is being applied before the speed control mode is canceled, when the cancellation condition is satisfied” (Naito ¶ 91) by notifying the passenger that the autonomous vehicle mode is ending, which will cancel the speed suppression.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when Naito was combined with Ohta, the notification of Naito would refer to the one-pedal control mode of Ohta because that is the mode of non-autonomous operation in Ohta. Therefore, the combination of Ohta and Naito at least teaches and/or suggests the limitation “notify a driver via a notification device provided in an interior of the vehicle that the one pedal control mode is being applied before the speed control mode is canceled, when the cancellation condition is satisfied,” rendering it obvious.
Ohta and Naito are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle control devices.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ohta and Naito before him or her to modify the speed control cancelation of Ohta to include the notification to the passenger of Naito.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this features increases the safety of the system by notifying the passenger and, in the event of an accidental override, the passenger will be able to safely reengage the speed control mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Semenov et al., US Publication 2022/0097700, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode and cruise control mode.
Semenov et al., US Publication 2022/0097707, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode and cruise control mode.
Naserian et al., US Publication 2022/0105925, A vehicle controller for overriding one-pedal-driving mode.
Kim et al., US Publication 2022/0111844, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode.
Ookawara et al., US Publication 2022/016196, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode.
Niu, US Publication 2023/0294719, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode and cruise control mode.
Mounzer et al., US Publication 2024/0400037, A vehicle controller including one-pedal-driving mode and cruise control mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662