DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10 June, 2026 has been entered. Claims 3, 8, and 11 have been canceled. Claim 12 has been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June, 2026 with respect to the objection to Applicant’s Abstract have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The abstract is still written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
Both Kakeshita and Moshchuk fail to teach or suggest suppressing execution of the stop control when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance steering assistance, wherein the predetermined condition includes a steering amount equal to or greater than a third threshold value, which is greater than the first threshold value, detected based on the steering state.
Furthermore, Kakeshita and Moshchuk do not disclose the technical concept of preventing unintended accelerator operation caused by the driver's posture being disturbed by lateral forces during evasive steering assistance. This concept is enabled by the methods of claims 1 and 10. It is noted that Kakeshita mentions a predetermined condition. However, the predetermined conditions in Kakeshita are conditions for performing override, while the predetermined conditions in claims 1 and 10 are conditions for suppressing override. It is thus clear that the conditions in Kakeshita are different and in fact opposite of the conditions recited in claims 1 and 10.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. Kakeshita mentions both a predetermined condition for performing the override (See Kakeshita Paragraph 0091 When the driver carries out a driving operation which is determined as the first or second mistaken operation, but there is no object near the own vehicle VA, the driver may intentionally and strongly operate the accelerator pedal 51. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 forbids itself to execute the PCS control.) and a predetermined condition for suppressing the override (See Kakeshita Paragraph 0092 On the other hand, when there is the object near the own vehicle VA, the own vehicle VA should be prevented from approaching the object. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 permits itself to execute the PCS control.). Therefore, Kakeshita does teach the claimed elements of claims 1 and 10 (and newly added claim 12).
Applicant further argues:
Finally, it is noted that the claimed invention assumes a situation where the collision avoidance control is activated and the driver, sensing that the vehicle is about to deviate from its lane, makes a large steering input in the opposite direction (steering amount exceeding the first threshold). In such a situation, the claimed invention provides control to prevent accelerator override due to excessive force applied to the foot (for example, see paragraphs [0102] and [0117] of the Specification).
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. The exact features argued by Applicant (driver senses that the vehicle is about to deviate from its lane, makes a large steering input in the opposite direction, preventing accelerator override due to excessive force applied to the foot) are not specifically recited in the claims. Rather, the claim merely recites suppressing execution of the stop control when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance assistance wherein the predetermined condition includes a steering amount equal to or greater than a third threshold value, which is greater than the first threshold value, detected based on the steering state, which is taught by Kakeshita as set forth below.
Finally, Applicant argues:
Kakeshita describes override control when the accelerator operation speed exceeds a threshold (i.e., accelerator operation is used for override control). The method of claim 12 is different. The method of claim 12 does not use the accelerator opening change rate for override control. This is because when the posture of the driver is disturbed, there is a high possibility that the rate of change in the opening changes very suddenly, so that, by invalidating the override determination based on the rate of change in the opening when the stop control is suppressed, it is possible to more appropriately suppress the driver from unintentionally executing the stop control (for example, see paragraph [0106] of the Specification). Consequently, Kakeshita and Moshchuk cannot render claim 12 obvious.
The Examiner has carefully considered the argument, however it is not persuasive. Kakeshita teaches that either accelerator operation speed or accelerator operation amount may be used for the override control (See Kakeshita Paragraph 0176 Condition C2: The accelerator pedal operation speed APV is greater than or equal to a third operation speed threshold APVth3, or the accelerator pedal operation amount AP is greater than or equal to a third operation amount threshold APth3. Paragraph 0177 The surrounding sensors 14 may make mistaken detections. For example, a reliability of the objects (r) detected only by the radar sensors 16 is lower than a reliability of the objects (f). When the driver relatively strongly operates the accelerator pedal 51 after the PCS control is started to be executed, there may be not actually the objects (r) around the own vehicle VA. Thus, when the condition C2 becomes satisfied, the PCS ECU 10 may stop executing the PCS control.). Therefore, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of newly added claim 12 as set forth below.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakeshita (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0176982) in view of Moshchuk (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0101701).
Regarding claim 1, Kakeshita teaches a vehicle control method comprising: by a computer (Paragraph 0036 For example, the PCS ECU 10 includes a micro-computer which includes a CPU 10a a ROM 10b a RAM 10c, a non-volatile memory 10d, and an interface (I/F) 10e.), recognizing surrounding conditions of a vehicle (Paragraph 0042 Surrounding sensors 14 include a camera sensor 15 and radar sensors 16a, 16b, and 16c. The surrounding sensors 14 are configured to acquire information on standing objects in a surrounding area around the own vehicle.), detecting a steering state of an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph 0038 A steering angle sensor 11 detects a steering angle of a steering wheel SW of the own vehicle VA and outputs signals which represent steering angles theta [deg], respectively.), detecting a speed operation of the vehicle by the occupant (Paragraph 0062 The accelerator pedal operation amount sensor 21 detects an operation amount of an accelerator pedal 51, i.e., an acceleration opening degree [%] of the accelerator pedal 51 and outputs signals which represent the operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 to the engine ECU 20.), determining that there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle on the basis of the recognized surrounding conditions of the vehicle (Paragraph 0073 In particular, the PCS ECU 10 recognizes the objects around the own vehicle VA, based on the object information. Then, the PCS ECU 10 selects the object with which the own vehicle VA may collide, from among the recognized objects.), executing avoidance assistance to avoid contact with the obstacle when a steering amount equal to or greater than a first threshold value is detected based on the detected steering state of the occupant (Paragraph 0079 Accordingly, the PCS ECU 10 determines that the first mistaken operation is carried out when conditions A1 to A3 described below all become satisfied. Paragraph 0082 Condition A3: The magnitude or an absolute value of the steering angle 8 is greater than a threshold (in this embodiment, a first steering angle threshold thetath1).), executing stop control to stop the avoidance assistance when a speed operation equal to or greater than a second threshold value is detected based on the detected speed operation during the execution of the avoidance assistance (Paragraph 0091 When the driver carries out a driving operation which is determined as the first or second mistaken operation, but there is no object near the own vehicle VA, the driver may intentionally and strongly operate the accelerator pedal 51. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 forbids itself to execute the PCS control.), and suppressing execution of the stop control when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance assistance (Paragraph 0092 On the other hand, when there is the object near the own vehicle VA, the own vehicle VA should be prevented from approaching the object. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 permits itself to execute the PCS control.), wherein the predetermined condition includes a steering amount equal to or greater than a third threshold value, which is greater than the first threshold value, detected based on the steering state (Paragraph 0113 On the other hand, when the driver carries out the second mistaken operation, the driver does not substantially operate the steering wheel SW. Then, when the driver considerably operates the steering wheel SW, the driver probably carries out the steering operation for avoiding the collision of the own vehicle VA with the object. In this case, the condition Cl becomes satisfied. Thus, the PCS ECU 10 stops executing the PCS control. With this configuration, when the driver considerably operates the steering wheel SW after carrying out the second mistaken operation, the driving operations carried out by the driver can be used to control the own vehicle VA. Thus, the own vehicle VA can be prevented from approaching the object by the driving operations carried out by the driver.)..
However, Kakeshita does not teach that the avoidance assistance is performed as an avoidance steering assistance (Kakeshita teaches that the vehicle performs braking assistance for obstacle avoidance).
Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for performing obstacle avoidance in a vehicle. The system performs avoidance steering assistance if the system determines possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle (Paragraph 0020 If the speed of the host vehicle 12 and the distances between the host vehicle 12 and the target vehicle 14 becomes too short, the collision avoidance system may then provide automatic steering if the distance s approaches a calculated steering threshold ssteer, where ssteer<sbrake.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kakeshita with the teachings of Moshchuk which teaches performing avoidance steering assistance if the system determines possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle in order to avoid obstacles in cases when braking alone will not be enough to avoid the obstacle (Paragraph 0020 If the speed of the host vehicle 12 and the distances between the host vehicle 12 and the target vehicle 14 becomes too short, the collision avoidance system may then provide automatic steering if the distance s approaches a calculated steering threshold ssteer, where ssteer<sbrake.).
Regarding claim 10 , the claim is commensurate in scope with claim 1 with the exception that claim 10 is directed to a vehicle control device. Kakeshita teaches that the method of claim 1 may be executed by a control device comprising a non-transitory memory (Paragraph 0036 For example, the PCS ECU 10 includes a micro-computer which includes a CPU 10a a ROM 10b a RAM 10c, a non-volatile memory 10d, and an interface (I/F) 10e.). Therefore, the same prior art can be applied to claim 10 as was applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a predetermined time from a start of the avoidance steering assistance (Paragraph 0110 When a condition C1 described below becomes satisfied, the PCS ECU 10 determines that the stopping condition becomes satisfied. Paragraph 0111 Condition C1: The steering operation speed thetaV continues to be greater than a threshold (in this embodiment, a first steering operation speed threshold thetaVth1) for a predetermined time Tsv or more.).
Regarding claim 4, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein, when the execution of the stop control is suppressed, a value of the second threshold value is set to be larger than when the execution of the stop control is not suppressed (Paragraph 0086 Condition B1: The accelerator pedal operation speed APV is greater than or equal to a threshold (in this embodiment, a second operation speed threshold APVth2). In this embodiment, the second operation speed threshold APVth2 is set to the same value as the first operation speed threshold APVth1. However, the second operation speed threshold APVth2 may be greater than the first operation speed threshold APVth1.).
Regarding claim 5, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 4 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein the speed operation includes an operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, and the second threshold value is a threshold value for an opening of the accelerator pedal (Paragraph 0062 The accelerator pedal operation amount sensor 21 detects an operation amount of an accelerator pedal 51, i.e., an acceleration opening degree [%] of the accelerator pedal 51 and outputs signals which represent the operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 to the engine ECU 20. Paragraph 0081 Condition A2: The accelerator pedal operation amount AP is greater than or equal to a threshold (in this embodiment, a first operation amount threshold APth1).).
Regarding claim 6, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 4 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein the speed operation includes an operation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle, and the second threshold value is a threshold value for a rate of change in an opening of the accelerator pedal (Paragraph 0077 Further, a change amount of the accelerator pedal operation amount AP per unit time will be referred to as "accelerator pedal operation speed APV [%/s] or acceleration opening degree speed APV [%/s]". Paragraph 0080 Condition A1: The accelerator pedal operation speed APV is greater than or equal to a threshold (in this embodiment, a first operation speed threshold APVth1).).
Regarding claim 7, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein the stop control is not executed when the predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance steering assistance (Paragraph 0092 On the other hand, when there is the object near the own vehicle VA, the own vehicle VA should be prevented from approaching the object. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 permits itself to execute the PCS control.).
Regarding claim 9, Kakeshita in view of Moshchuk teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Kakeshita further teaches wherein the speed operation includes an operation related to an opening of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle (Paragraph 0081 Condition A2: The accelerator pedal operation amount AP is greater than or equal to a threshold (in this embodiment, a first operation amount threshold APth1).) and a rate of change in the opening of the accelerator pedal (Paragraph 0080 Condition A1: The accelerator pedal operation speed APV is greater than or equal to a threshold (in this embodiment, a first operation speed threshold APVth1).).
Regarding claim 12, Kakeshita teaches a vehicle control method comprising: by a computer (Paragraph 0036 For example, the PCS ECU 10 includes a micro-computer which includes a CPU 10a a ROM 10b a RAM 10c, a non-volatile memory 10d, and an interface (I/F) 10e.), recognizing surrounding conditions of a vehicle (Paragraph 0042 Surrounding sensors 14 include a camera sensor 15 and radar sensors 16a, 16b, and 16c. The surrounding sensors 14 are configured to acquire information on standing objects in a surrounding area around the own vehicle.), detecting a steering state of an occupant of the vehicle (Paragraph 0038 A steering angle sensor 11 detects a steering angle of a steering wheel SW of the own vehicle VA and outputs signals which represent steering angles theta [deg], respectively.), detecting a speed operation of the vehicle by the occupant (Paragraph 0062 The accelerator pedal operation amount sensor 21 detects an operation amount of an accelerator pedal 51, i.e., an acceleration opening degree [%] of the accelerator pedal 51 and outputs signals which represent the operation amount of the accelerator pedal 51 to the engine ECU 20.), determining that there is a possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle on the basis of the recognized surrounding conditions of the vehicle (Paragraph 0073 In particular, the PCS ECU 10 recognizes the objects around the own vehicle VA, based on the object information. Then, the PCS ECU 10 selects the object with which the own vehicle VA may collide, from among the recognized objects.), executing avoidance assistance to avoid contact with the obstacle when a steering amount equal to or greater than a first threshold value is detected based on the detected steering state of the occupant (Paragraph 0079 Accordingly, the PCS ECU 10 determines that the first mistaken operation is carried out when conditions A1 to A3 described below all become satisfied. Paragraph 0082 Condition A3: The magnitude or an absolute value of the steering angle 8 is greater than a threshold (in this embodiment, a first steering angle threshold thetath1).), executing stop control to stop the avoidance assistance when a speed operation equal to or greater than a second threshold value is detected based on the detected speed operation during the execution of the avoidance assistance (Paragraph 0091 When the driver carries out a driving operation which is determined as the first or second mistaken operation, but there is no object near the own vehicle VA, the driver may intentionally and strongly operate the accelerator pedal 51. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 forbids itself to execute the PCS control.), and suppressing execution of the stop control when a predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance assistance (Paragraph 0092 On the other hand, when there is the object near the own vehicle VA, the own vehicle VA should be prevented from approaching the object. In this case, the PCS ECU 10 permits itself to execute the PCS control.), wherein a determination regarding suppression of the stop control using a rate of change in an opening of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle is not executed when the predetermined condition is satisfied during the execution of the avoidance steering assistance (Paragraph 0176 Condition C2: The accelerator pedal operation speed APV is greater than or equal to a third operation speed threshold APVth3, or the accelerator pedal operation amount AP is greater than or equal to a third operation amount threshold APth3. Paragraph 0177 The surrounding sensors 14 may make mistaken detections. For example, a reliability of the objects (r) detected only by the radar sensors 16 is lower than a reliability of the objects (f). When the driver relatively strongly operates the accelerator pedal 51 after the PCS control is started to be executed, there may be not actually the objects (r) around the own vehicle VA. Thus, when the condition C2 becomes satisfied, the PCS ECU 10 may stop executing the PCS control.).
However, Kakeshita does not teach that the avoidance assistance is performed as an avoidance steering assistance (Kakeshita teaches that the vehicle performs braking assistance for obstacle avoidance).
Moshchuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for performing obstacle avoidance in a vehicle. The system performs avoidance steering assistance if the system determines possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle (Paragraph 0020 If the speed of the host vehicle 12 and the distances between the host vehicle 12 and the target vehicle 14 becomes too short, the collision avoidance system may then provide automatic steering if the distance s approaches a calculated steering threshold ssteer, where ssteer<sbrake.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kakeshita with the teachings of Moshchuk which teaches performing avoidance steering assistance if the system determines possibility of contact between the vehicle and an obstacle in order to avoid obstacles in cases when braking alone will not be enough to avoid the obstacle (Paragraph 0020 If the speed of the host vehicle 12 and the distances between the host vehicle 12 and the target vehicle 14 becomes too short, the collision avoidance system may then provide automatic steering if the distance s approaches a calculated steering threshold ssteer, where ssteer<sbrake.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D MOHL whose telephone number is (571)272-8987. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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 DANIEL MOHL/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights