DETAILED ACTION
The final action is in response to the reply and amendment filed 29 May 2026, which was in response to the non-final action dated 5 March 2026.
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
Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 5 and 6 have been newly added.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations of independent claim 1 (pgs. 3-6, Action), applicant does not dispute the interpretation (pg. 5, Reply). Thus the claim interpretation is maintained, as included below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4 (pgs. 7-17, Action), applicant’s amendments and the newly added claims necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.WS.C. 103 are: claims 1 and 2 in view of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi; claims 3 in view of Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Ito; claim 4 in view of Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Goto; claim 5 in view of Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Kawasaki; and claim 6 in view of Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Tsunekazu, as discussed below.
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 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) 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):
(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 limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an intersection recognition module configured to recognize and intersection” (see specification [0023] disclosing that as illustrated in FIG. 2A, the ECU 10 includes, as functional elements, an intersection recognition module 100, a left/right turn prediction module 110, a target deceleration rate calculation module 120, a deceleration control module 130, a target vehicle speed changing module 140, and the like. Each of those functional elements 100 to 140 is implemented by the CPU 11 of the ECU 10 reading out a program stored in the ROM 12 into the RAM 13 and executing the read-out program; [0024] disclosing the camera sensor 42 of the external sensor device 40 acquires the traffic lights and road signs installed at the intersection before acquiring the stop line of the intersection. ... the intersection recognition module 100 uses a publicly known method to recognize the position of the intersection (relative position with respect to the vehicle VH) by processing the image data captured by the camera sensor 42);
“a left/right turn prediction module configured to predict whether the vehicle is to turn left or right” (see specification [0023] );
“a deceleration control module configured to perform ... deceleration control” (see specification [0023] ; [0031] The deceleration control module 130 performs deceleration control by controlling operation of the braking device 22); and
“an external information acquisition module configured to acquire information on an oncoming vehicle” (see specification [0011] [0011] The ECU 10 is a central device which performs driving support such as deceleration support. Driving support is a concept including autonomous driving. To the ECU 10, a drive device 20, a steering device 21, a braking device 22, an internal sensor device 30, an external sensor device 40).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The intersection recognition module is interpreted as the camera sensor of the external sensor device as disclosed in [0024]. The left right predication module is being interpreted as the ECU as disclosed in [0023]. The deceleration control module is interpreted as the ECU controlling the braking device as disclosed in [0023] and [0031]. The external information acquisition module is interpreted as the ECU and external sensors as disclosed in [0011].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0227033 to Sugawara et al. (hereafter Sugawara) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0217430 to Sherony and U.S. Publication Number 2021/0024060 to Adachi et al. (hereafter Adachi).
As per claim 1, Sugawara discloses [a] driving support device (see at least Sugawara, abstract), comprising:
an intersection recognition module configured to recognize an intersection in front of a vehicle in a traveling direction (see at least Sugawara, abstract, disclosing that a driver assistance device acquires information about vehicle-driving environment ahead of the vehicle to detect an intersection; [0018] disclosing that the driver assistance device can accurately predict whether the vehicle will interfere with a moving object that is crossing a road close to an intersection at which vehicle makes a right- or left-hand turn to head into the road; [0020] disclosing that the driver assistance device includes a camera unit 21; [0021] disclosing that the camera unit 21 acquires information about the vehicle-driving environment ahead of the vehicle M to obtain information on static objects and information on objects exhibiting dynamic behavior; [0026] disclosing that the camera unit 21 is fixed to the upper midsection of the front part of the interior of the vehicle M. The camera unit 21 includes an on-board camera, an image processing unit (IPU) 21c, and the forward vehicle-driving environment recognizing module 21d);
a left/right turn prediction module configured to predict whether the vehicle is to turn left or right at the intersection recognized by the intersection recognition module (see at least Sugawara [0032] disclosing that when detecting an intersection ahead of the vehicle M, the driver assistance control unit 22 determines whether the vehicle M makes a right-hand turn or a left-hand turn (a “right- or left-hand turn” for short). When determining that the vehicle M makes a right- or left-hand turn, the driver assistance control unit 22 acquires information about the environment ahead of the point at which the vehicle M makes a right- or left hand turn);
a deceleration control module configured to perform, when the left/right turn prediction module predicts that the vehicle is to turn left or right at the intersection, deceleration control of decelerating the vehicle to a predetermined target vehicle speed before the vehicle reaches a predetermined target position (see at least Sugawara, [0042] disclosing that the projected course of the vehicle M at the time of a right-hand turn is illustrated in FIG. 4, in which the left front wheel of the vehicle M on the projected course is to pass through points located on the inner side with respect to the midpoint of the intersection. At the point in time when progression to Step S7 occurs during the execution of the program, the vehicle M is about to enter the intersection at reduced speed (at speeds in a range of 10 to 20 Km/h); [0051] disclosing that Step S16, the vehicle M is brought to a halt short of reaching the crosswalk ahead of the point at which the vehicle M makes a right- or left-hand turn <interpreted as a predetermined target position>. Then, progression to Step S17 occurs. In order to cause the vehicle M to halt short of the crosswalk <interpreted as a predetermined target position>, the driver assistance control unit 22 causes the brake controller 31 and the acceleration/deceleration controller 32 to perform control actions on the basis of the vehicle speed and the distance between the vehicle M and the crosswalk) ... (1) ... ; and
an external information acquisition module configured to acquire information on an oncoming vehicle and/or information on a pedestrian and/or information on a traffic light color of the intersection (see at least Sugawara, [0042]; [0027] pedestrians ; [0044] disclosing that in Step S10, the movement vector (the direction of movement and the speed) of the moving object OB is calculated from positional changes of the moving object OB. The positional changes are detected at every arithmetic operation period. Arrows in FIGS. 3 to 5 denote the movement vectors of the pedestrians OBh and the bicycles OBb; [0052] disclosing that in step S17, it is determined whether there is an object recognized as the moving object OB that is crossing or about to cross the road at the crosswalk. The determination is made on the basis of the forward vehicle-driving environment information obtained by the forward vehicle-driving environment recognizing module 21d of the camera unit 21. If there is an object recognized as the moving object OB that is crossing or about to cross the crosswalk, progression to step S18 occurs; [0053] disclosing that in step S18, it is determined whether the moving object OB has passed the front of the vehicle M. The determination is made on the basis of the forward vehicle-driving environment information obtained by the forward vehicle-driving environment recognizing module 21d of the camera unit 21. The brake controller 31 controls the brakes to cause the vehicle M to keep halting until the moving object OB in front is past the vehicle M) ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... . But Sugawara does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Sherony:
(2) the deceleration control module being configured to change the predetermined target vehicle speed (see at least Sherony, abstract; [0024] disclosing that the one or more sensors can be configured to detect, determine, assess, monitor, measure, quantify and/or sense in real-time. As used herein, the term “real-time” means a level of processing responsiveness that a user or system senses as sufficiently immediate for a particular process or determination to be made, or that enables the processor to keep up with some external process. The sensor system 220 and/or the one or more sensors can be operatively connected to the processor(s) 210, the data store(s) 215, and/or other element of the vehicle 200 (including any of the elements shown in FIG. 2); [0072] disclosing that responsive to determining that the oncoming vehicle 450 intends to execute a left turn across the path of the vehicle 200, a driving maneuver for the vehicle 200 can be determined to avoid a collision with the oncoming vehicle 450 or to mitigate the risk of a collision. The determination of a driving maneuver can be performed by one or more elements of the vehicle 200. For instance, such a determination can be performed by the LTAP/OD module(s) 270, the autonomous driving module(s) 260, and/or the processor(s) 210. The driving maneuver can be any suitable driving maneuver. For instance, the driving maneuver can be decelerating or otherwise reducing the speed of the vehicle 200. As an example, the vehicle 200 can reduce its speed to allow the oncoming vehicle 450 to complete the left turn before the vehicle 200 reaches the intersection 430 and/or to allow the vehicle 200 to potentially activate the braking system 242 less sharply if the oncoming vehicle 450 attempts to make a left turn) ... . But, neither Sugawara nor Sherony explicitly teach the following limitations taught by Adachi:
(1) ... before the vehicle reaches a predetermined target position located on a near side of the intersection (see at least Adachi, [0169] disclosing that in FIG. 9(a), in order to make a right turn, the host vehicle HV turns on the right blinker while running and starts deceleration. At this time, the right/left turn determination means 12 determines a right turn of the host vehicle HV, and the right/left turn point prediction means 13 calculates a right turn prediction point PP; [0170] disclosing that in FIG. 9(c), the intersection right/left turn determination means 101 determines that the prediction point PP (indicated by a star in FIG. 9(c)), which is predicted by the right/left turn point prediction means 13, is outside the intersection surrounding area CA.) ... ; and
(3) the deceleration control module being configured to change the predetermined target vehicle speed from a reference target vehicle speed and/or change a start timing for starting the deceleration control from a reference timing based on the information acquired by the external information acquisition module (see at least Adachi, [0051] disclosing that the preset deceleration and the preset target speed may be set at the time of manufacturing the driving assistance device 1, may be set by a driver, or may be set to values predicted by the driving support device 1 on the basis of past running histories; [0053] disclosing that the preset target speed is for the case where it is considered that a right/left turn is made without stopping, and may be zero in the case where this is not considered. The preset decelerations for the right turn and left turn may be different values or the same value, and the preset target speeds for the right turn and left turn may be different values or the same value; [0080] disclosing that, with reference to Fig. 3(b), on the basis of the host vehicle information, the right/left turn point prediction means 13 computes from the speed information a distance required for the host vehicle to decelerate its speed (current speed) to the target speed, thereby calculating a right turn prediction point PP; [0115]; [0119]).
Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same filed of technology suitable for deceleration support of a vehicle. Sugawara relates to a driver assistance device to be applied to a vehicle at times of right- and left-hand turns (see at least Sugawara, [0002]). Sherony relates to the operation vehicles having an autonomous operational relative to oncoming objects (see at least Sherony, [0001]). Adachi relates to a driving assistance device to perform driving assistance of a vehicle (see Adachi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, to provide the benefit of (2) changing the predetermined target vehicle speed, as disclosed in Sherony, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the performance of vehicles and the safety of vehicle occupants (see at least Sherony, [0012]). It would have further been obvious to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, as modified by Sherony, to provide the benefit of (1) decelerating the vehicle to a predetermined target vehicle speed before the vehicle reaches a predetermined target position before the vehicle reaches a predetermined target position located on a near side of the intersection and (3) change the predetermined target vehicle speed from a reference target vehicle speed and/or change a start timing for starting the deceleration control from a reference timing based on the information acquired by the external information acquisition module, as disclosed in Adachi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the further benefit of avoiding a collision with a mobile object whose traveling route intersects with that of the host vehicle when the vehicle turns right or left (see Adachi, [0002]; [0009]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sherony further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the deceleration control module is configured to execute target vehicle speed change processing of lowering the predetermined target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of advancing the start timing when the left/right turn prediction module predicts that the vehicle is to turn left or right toward an oncoming lane (as cited in claim 1, see at least Sherony, [0024]; [0072]) and
the external information acquisition module acquires information on an oncoming vehicle predicted to enter the intersection within a predetermined period of time before and after a timing at which the vehicle is to reach the predetermined target position (as cited in claim 1, see at least Sherony, abstract; [0024] disclosing that the one or more sensors can be configured to detect, determine, assess, monitor, measure, quantify and/or sense in real-time. As used herein, the term “real-time” means a level of processing responsiveness that a user or system senses as sufficiently immediate for a particular process or determination to be made <interpreted as within a predetermined period of time before and after a timing>, or that enables the processor to keep up with some external process. The sensor system 220 and/or the one or more sensors can be operatively connected to the processor(s) 210, the data store(s) 215, and/or other element of the vehicle 200 (including any of the elements shown in FIG. 2); [0072]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0219571 to Ito et al. (hereafter Ito).
As per claim 3, the combination of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Sugawara further discloses the following limitation:
when the external information acquisition module acquires information on a pedestrian predicted to travel through a crosswalk in a path of the vehicle which is to turn left or right within a predetermined period of time before and after a timing at which the vehicle is to reach the predetermined target position (see at least Sugawara, [0027] disclosing that the camera unit 21 operates as follows: the cameras 21a and 21b project an image of a predetermined imaging field If (see FIGS. 3 to 5) in front of the vehicle M for recording vehicle-driving environment image information, and the IPU 21c then performs image processing on the vehicle-driving environment image information in a predetermined manner. Examples of the forward vehicle-driving environment information to be acquired include: ... moving objects (e.g., pedestrians and bicycles) that are crossing a road; vehicles ahead of the vehicle M; and oncoming vehicles in the opposite lane; [0032]; [0033]). But, neither Sugawara, Sherony nor Adachi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Ito:
wherein the deceleration control module is configured to execute target vehicle speed change processing of lowering the predetermined target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of advancing the start timing (see at least Ito, [0076] disclosing that when the distance between the vehicle SV and the intersection C is equal to or shorter than the threshold value distance Dv, and the right/left turn intention determination unit 13 determines that the driver has the right/left turn intention at the time t2, the target deceleration calculation unit 15 calculates the first target deceleration G1 based on the vehicle speed V at this time and the estimated stop line position S1; [0079]).
Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Ito are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same filed of technology suitable for deceleration support of a vehicle. Sugawara relates to a driver assistance device to be applied to a vehicle at times of right- and left-hand turns (see at least Sugawara, [0002]). Sherony relates to the operation vehicles having an autonomous operational relative to oncoming objects (see at least Sherony, [0001]). Adachi relates to a driving assistance device to perform driving assistance of a vehicle (see Adachi, [0001]). Ito relates to a deceleration assistance device, a vehicle, a deceleration assistance method, and a program (see at least Ito, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, as modified by Sherony and Adachi, to provide the benefit of executing target vehicle speed change processing of lowering the predetermined target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of advancing the start timing when a pedestrian predicted to travel through a crosswalk, as disclosed in Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the comfort and drivability of the vehicle (see at least Ito, [0003], [0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2026/0008482 to Goto et al. (hereafter Goto).
As per claim 4, the combination of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Sugawara, Sherony nor Adachi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Goto:
wherein the deceleration control module is configured to execute target vehicle speed change processing of increasing the predetermined target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of delaying the start timing when it is predicted (see at least Goto, [0214] disclosing that when the vehicle 1 has already entered the intersection as illustrated in FIG. 35, the allowable risk setter 69 sets the rule deviation allowable risk represented by the expression (4) described above for the rule deviation risk set at the intersection. Accordingly, when the rule deviation risk set at the intersection becomes higher than the rule deviation allowable risk in association with a change in the lighting color of the traffic light 111 from green to yellow and from yellow to red, the allowable risk setter 69 increases the rule deviation allowable risk by increasing the set speed of the vehicle 1. That is, it is possible for a person to determine to quickly come out of the rule deviation state in which the vehicle 1 is located at the intersection even after the lighting color of the traffic light 111 changes to red),
based on information on the traffic light color acquired by the external information acquisition module, that the traffic light color is to change to a color which prohibits the vehicle from entering the intersection within a predetermined period of time before and after a timing at which the vehicle is to reach the predetermined target position (see at least Goto, [0214]).
Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Goto are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same filed of technology suitable for deceleration support of a vehicle. Sugawara relates to a driver assistance device to be applied to a vehicle at times of right- and left-hand turns (see at least Sugawara, [0002]). Sherony relates to the operation vehicles having an autonomous operational relative to oncoming objects (see at least Sherony, [0001]). Adachi relates to a driving assistance device to perform driving assistance of a vehicle (see Adachi, [0001]). Goto relates to a driver assistance apparatus, a driver assistance processing method, and a recording medium (see at least Goto, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, as modified by Sherony and Adachi, to provide the benefit of increasing the predetermined target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of delaying the start timing when it is predicted based on information on the traffic light color acquired by the external information acquisition module, that the traffic light color is to change to a color which prohibits the vehicle from entering the intersection within a predetermined period of time before and after a timing at which the vehicle is to reach the predetermined target position, as disclosed in Goto, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of executing appropriate driver assistance control reflecting the intensity of a traffic rule and a temporal change in the traffic rule (see at least Goto, [0008]).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0161623 to Kawasaki.
As per claim 5, the combination of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Sugawara, Sherony nor Adachi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kawasaki:
wherein the predetermined target position is a position of a stop line of the intersection (see at least Kawasaki, [0053]; [0076] disclosing that the vehicle 1A decelerates to stop before the stop line 112 in the traveling lane 111 detected in step S201, and autonomously stops at the stop position before the stop line 112 (S202); [0098]).
Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Kawasaki are analogous art to claim 5 because they are in the same filed of technology suitable for deceleration support of a vehicle. Sugawara relates to a driver assistance device to be applied to a vehicle at times of right- and left-hand turns (see at least Sugawara, [0002]). Sherony relates to the operation vehicles having an autonomous operational relative to oncoming objects (see at least Sherony, [0001]). Adachi relates to a driving assistance device to perform driving assistance of a vehicle (see Adachi, [0001]). Kawasaki relates to a driving support device that acquires target information indicating a target on a road intersecting the intersection from the roadside device, determines a possibility of collision between the target and the vehicle at the intersection based on the target information and the own vehicle information indicating the state of the vehicle and determines to perform driving assistance to the driver of the vehicle based on the result of the determination (see at least Kawasaki, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, as modified by Sherony and Adachi, to provide the benefit of having the predetermined target position be a position of a stop line of the intersection, as disclosed in Kawasaki, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the drivers response in order to prevent the collision (see Kawasaki, [0004]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0324480 to Tsunekazu et al. (hereafter Tsunekazu).
As per claim 6, the combination of Sugawara, Sherony and Adachi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Adachi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the deceleration control module is configured to: execute target vehicle speed change processing of lowering the predetermined target vehicle speed from the reference target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of advancing the start timing from the reference start timing when the external information acquisition module acquires information on an oncoming vehicle or information on a pedestrian (as cited for claim 1, see at least Adachi, [0051]; [0080]; [0115]; [0119]) ... . But, neither Sugawara, Sherony nor Adachi explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Tsunekazu:
execute target vehicle speed change processing of increasing the predetermined target vehicle speed from the reference target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of delaying the start timing from the reference start timing when the external information acquisition module does not acquire information on an oncoming vehicle or a pedestrian and acquires information on the traffic light color (see at least Tsunekazu, [0114] disclosing that when it is determined that the color of the light of the traffic light has changed to green (green light), the vehicle control ECU 40 is controlled to accelerate and advance the vehicle 500, and the vehicle 500 passes through the intersection <interpreted as no information on an oncoming vehicle or a pedestrian acquired, and traffic light information acquired>; [0136]; [0147]).
Sugawara, Sherony, Adachi and Tsunekazu are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same filed of technology suitable for deceleration support of a vehicle. Sugawara relates to a driver assistance device to be applied to a vehicle at times of right- and left-hand turns (see at least Sugawara, [0002]). Sherony relates to the operation vehicles having an autonomous operational relative to oncoming objects (see at least Sherony, [0001]). Adachi relates to a driving assistance device to perform driving assistance of a vehicle (see Adachi, [0001]). Tsunekazu relates to a control device that switches a control content of the autonomous vehicle based on the vehicle position (see Tsunekazu, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Sugawara, as modified by Sherony and Adachi, to provide the benefit of increasing the predetermined target vehicle speed from the reference target vehicle speed and/or start timing change processing of delaying the start timing from the reference start timing when the external information acquisition module does not acquire information on an oncoming vehicle or a pedestrian and acquires information on the traffic light color, as disclosed in Tsunekazu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the driving efficiency and travel time by providing speed increase when there is no obstacles detected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0001918 to Koike et al. (hereafter Koike) see Fig. 2, and [0039] disclosing that when determination is made not to stop at the stop line L, the stop position setter 22d sets a stop at any one of the stop positions P1, P2, and P3 based on the determination result from the intersection situation determiner 22b and the determination result from the vehicle estimator 22c. The stop positions to be set by the stop position setter 22d are not limited to the three stop positions P1, P2, and P3, and may be two stop positions or less or may be four stop positions or more.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;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 is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights