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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 limitations 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 limitations are:
“A mobile body control device configured to execute” in claim 1 interpreted as an ECU, MPU, computer, or similar as supported by specification paragraph [0048]
“an acceleration acquirer configured to acquire” in claim 1 interpreted as an acceleration sensors as supported by specification paragraph [0053]
“a gradient acquirer configured to acquire” in claim 1 interpreted as an inclination angle sensor or map database as supported by specification paragraph [0054]
“a preceding mobile body detector configured to detect” in claim 1 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device with the various LIDAR, Radar, or camera as supported by specification [0037] and [0049]
“a following controller configured to execute” in claim 1 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to start” in claim 2 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to stop” in claim 3 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to calculate” in claim 4 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to stop” in claim 5 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to stop” in claim 6 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to stop” in claim 7 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to execute” in claim 8 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“the following controller is configured to suppress” in claim 9 interpreted as a part of the mobile body control device as supported by specification [0048-0049]
“a notifier configured to notify an occupant” in claim 10 interpreted as an HMI with display and sound as supported by specification [0046]
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2019/0250629 A1 hereinafter “Mizuno”) in view of Fraser et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2017/0297573 A1 hereinafter “Fraser”).
Regarding claim 1 Mizuno discloses:
A mobile body control device configured to execute travel control of a mobile body, the mobile body control device comprising: (Mizuno [0051] wherein the system controls the vehicle) an acceleration acquirer configured to acquire an actual acceleration of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0051] [0062] wherein the system determines an acceleration of the vehicle) a gradient acquirer configured to acquire a gradient of a travel route along which the mobile body is traveling; (Mizuno [0102] [0051] wherein the system determines a road gradient and slope during travel) a preceding mobile body detector configured to detect a preceding mobile body moving ahead of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0049] wherein the system determines if there is a vehicle in front and if the ego vehicle is in a following mode behind the preceding vehicle) and a following controller configured to execute following control to calculate a target acceleration for controlling a propulsion device and a brake device such that the mobile body follows the preceding mobile body, (Mizuno [0049-0051] [0057] wherein the vehicle can operate in a following distance controlled mode using the brakes and propulsion) wherein the following controller is configured to calculate the target acceleration based on a target distance and a distance between the mobile body and the preceding mobile body, (Mizuno [0057] wherein target acceleration is determined based on inter vehicle distances) and to start suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition (Mizuno [0051] wherein the acceleration target is based on road gradients and other conditions) … and a difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration is equal to or less than a prescribed difference determination value, (Mizuno [0051] [0102] [0107] [0109] wherein the vehicle speed differences in the target and the determined vehicle following distances are used to determine a variation and control the cruise control determinations) and while the following controller is executing the suppression control, the propulsion device and the brake device are controlled based on the corrected target acceleration instead of the target acceleration. (Mizuno [0040] [0050-0051] wherein the vehicle operates the engine and brakes to reach the target acceleration).
Mizuno does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… and to start suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Fraser discloses:
“and to start suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value” (Fraser [0027-0028] [0034] [0044-0045] [0050-0051] wherein when the speed control is determined for target acceleration control based on detected road gradients, slowing the vehicle as needed)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the downhill controls of Fraser with the system of Mizuno with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability and safety of the vehicle, such as through reducing brake fade in controlling downhill acceleration and speed controls (Fraser [0004-0006] [0016] [0050]).
Regarding claim 2 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the following controller is configured to start the suppression control on condition (Mizuno [0051] wherein the acceleration target is based on road gradients and other conditions) … the difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration is equal to or less than the prescribed difference determination value, (Mizuno [0051] [0102] [0107] [0109] wherein the vehicle speed differences in the target and the determined vehicle following distances are used to determine a variation and control the cruise control determinations) and the target acceleration is a value to increase a speed. (Mizuno [0053-0055] wherein the vehicle increases the acceleration to reach the target speed).
Mizuno does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… that the downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than the prescribed gradient determination value,
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Fraser discloses:
“that the downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than the prescribed gradient determination value,” (Fraser [0027-0028] [0034] [0044-0045] [0050-0051] wherein when the speed control is determined for target acceleration control based on detected road gradients)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the downhill controls of Fraser with the system of Mizuno with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability and safety of the vehicle, such as through reducing brake fade in controlling downhill acceleration and speed controls (Fraser [0004-0006] [0016] [0050]).
Regarding claim 3 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Mizuno does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the following controller is configured to stop the following control when a temperature of the brake device is equal to or more than a prescribed temperature determination value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Fraser discloses:
“wherein the following controller is configured to stop the following control when a temperature of the brake device is equal to or more than a prescribed temperature determination value.” (Fraser [0047] [0052] wherein the temperature of the brakes is monitored and the vehicle is controlled or a notification is provided based on the temperature, altering cruise control modes).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the brake monitoring control of Fraser with the system of Mizuno with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability and safety of the vehicle, such as through reducing brake fade in controlling downhill acceleration and speed controls (Fraser [0004-0006] [0016] [0050]).
Regarding claim 4 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the following controller is configured to calculate the target acceleration such that the distance between the mobile body and the preceding mobile body gets close to the target distance. (Mizuno [0049] [0051] [0057] [0062-0063] wherein the system determines an acceleration and following vehicle information to set an appropriate inter-vehicle speed i.e. either moving closer or further based on gathered information).
Regarding claim 5 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the following controller is configured to stop the suppression control when the difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration becomes more than the prescribed difference determination value. (Mizuno [0063-0067] [0075-0076] wherein the acceleration of the vehicle ahead along with the inter vehicle distance is determined to decide if the subject vehicle can accelerate or needs to decelerate i.e. the suppression control is ended when the acceleration of the subject vehicle is allowed).
Regarding claim 6 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the following controller is configured to stop the suppression control when an input operation on a driving operation device is detected, the driving operation device being configured to accept a driving operation by an occupant of the mobile body. (Mizuno [0033-0034] wherein the user is able to override or manually control the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the following controller is configured to stop the following control when the preceding mobile body ceases to be a following target. (Mizuno [0048-0049] wherein the vehicle determines what mode to be in, such as an overtake mode where the vehicle stops following the preceding vehicle).
Regarding claim 8 Mizuno in view of Fraser discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 5, wherein after the suppression control is stopped, the following controller is configured to execute a return process to suppress a changing amount of an absolute value of the target acceleration. (Mizuno [0102] [0109] wherein when in self-driving mode the change in the velocity and acceleration are suppressed to a more constant following speed).
Regarding claim 9 Mizuno in view of Fraser disclose all of the limitations of claim 5 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 8, wherein in the return process, the following controller is configured to suppress the changing amount of the absolute value of the target acceleration based on the difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration. (Mizuno [0102] [0109] wherein when in self-driving mode the change in the velocity and acceleration are suppressed to a more constant following speed).
Regarding claim 10 Mizuno discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Mizuno further discloses:
The mobile body control device according to claim 1, further comprising a notifier configured to notify an occupant of the mobile body that the suppression control is being executed when the following controller is executing the suppression control. (Mizuno [0033] wherein the system includes a display and speaker to provide information to the driver).
Regarding claim 11 Mizuno discloses:
A mobile body control method executed by a computer to execute travel control of a mobile body, the mobile body control method comprising: (Mizuno [0051] wherein the system controls the vehicle) acquiring an actual acceleration of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0051] [0062] wherein the system determines an acceleration of the vehicle) acquiring a gradient of a travel route along which the mobile body is traveling; (Mizuno [0102] [0051] wherein the system determines a road gradient and slope during travel) detecting a preceding mobile body moving ahead of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0049] wherein the system determines if there is a vehicle in front and if the ego vehicle is in a following mode behind the preceding vehicle) executing following control to calculate a target acceleration for controlling a propulsion device and a brake device such that the mobile body follows the preceding mobile body; (Mizuno [0049-0051] [0057] wherein the vehicle can operate in a following distance controlled mode using the brakes and propulsion) calculating the target acceleration based on a target distance and a distance between the mobile body and the preceding mobile body; (Mizuno [0057] wherein target acceleration is determined based on inter vehicle distances) and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition (Mizuno [0051] wherein the acceleration target is based on road gradients and other conditions) … and a difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration is equal to or less than a prescribed difference determination value, (Mizuno [0051] [0102] [0107] [0109] wherein the vehicle speed differences in the target and the determined vehicle following distances are used to determine a variation and control the cruise control determinations) wherein while the suppression control is being executed, the propulsion device and the brake device are controlled based on the corrected target acceleration instead of the target acceleration. (Mizuno [0040] [0050-0051] wherein the vehicle operates the engine and brakes to reach the target acceleration).
Mizuno does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Fraser discloses:
“… and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value” (Fraser [0027-0028] [0034] [0044-0045] [0050-0051] wherein when the speed control is determined for target acceleration control based on detected road gradients, slowing the vehicle as needed)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the downhill controls of Fraser with the system of Mizuno with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability and safety of the vehicle, such as through reducing brake fade in controlling downhill acceleration and speed controls (Fraser [0004-0006] [0016] [0050]).
Regarding claim 12 Mizuno discloses:
A … computer-readable storage medium, comprising a program for executing travel control of a mobile body, wherein the program, when executed by a computer, executes a mobile body control method comprising: (Mizuno [0051] wherein the system controls the vehicle) acquiring an actual acceleration of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0051] [0062] wherein the system determines an acceleration of the vehicle) acquiring a gradient of a travel route along which the mobile body is traveling; (Mizuno [0102] [0051] wherein the system determines a road gradient and slope during travel) detecting a preceding mobile body moving ahead of the mobile body; (Mizuno [0049] wherein the system determines if there is a vehicle in front and if the ego vehicle is in a following mode behind the preceding vehicle) executing following control to calculate a target acceleration for controlling a propulsion device and a brake device such that the mobile body follows the preceding mobile body; (Mizuno [0049-0051] [0057] wherein the vehicle can operate in a following distance controlled mode using the brakes and propulsion) calculating the target acceleration based on a target distance and a distance between the mobile body and the preceding mobile body; (Mizuno [0057] wherein target acceleration is determined based on inter vehicle distances) and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition (Mizuno [0051] wherein the acceleration target is based on road gradients and other conditions) … and a difference between the target acceleration and the actual acceleration is equal to or less than a prescribed difference determination value, (Mizuno [0051] [0102] [0107] [0109] wherein the vehicle speed differences in the target and the determined vehicle following distances are used to determine a variation and control the cruise control determinations) wherein while the suppression control is being executed, the propulsion device and the brake device are controlled based on the corrected target acceleration instead of the target acceleration. (Mizuno [0040] [0050-0051] wherein the vehicle operates the engine and brakes to reach the target acceleration).
Mizuno does not appear to explicitly disclose:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium … and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Fraser discloses:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (Fraser [0030] wherein the computer controller system includes processors and non-transitory mediums) and “and starting suppression control to calculate a corrected target acceleration by reducing an absolute value of the target acceleration on condition that a downward gradient of the travel route is equal to or more than a prescribed gradient determination value” (Fraser [0027-0028] [0034] [0044-0045] [0050-0051] wherein when the speed control is determined for target acceleration control based on detected road gradients, slowing the vehicle as needed)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the downhill controls and non-transitory medium of Fraser with the system of Mizuno with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve stability and safety of the vehicle, such as through reducing brake fade in controlling downhill acceleration and speed controls (Fraser [0004-0006] [0016] [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0303842 A1 discloses a vehicle system to operate a vehicle drive mode and control the vehicle based on passenger characteristics or unease
US 2017/0072955 A1 discloses a vehicle control system for an autonomous vehicle cruise control
US 2017/0021832 A1 discloses a vehicle controller for an acceleration control of the host vehicle while following a forward vehicle
US 2017/0015204 A1 discloses a vehicle control system for an acceleration or deceleration based on suppression and target values
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656