DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Vehicle Control Device, Vehicle Control Method, and Vehicle Control Program to Release Deceleration Control and Lower Acceleration.
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 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, 9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ike teach A vehicle control device (see at least FIG. 1: driving assistance ECU 10) that controls a speed of a vehicle (see at least [0047]: “driver’s vehicle”) during traveling, the vehicle control device comprising a processor (see at least [0048]: “Those ECUs are electric control units each including a microcomputer as a main part …. The microcomputer herein includes a central processing unit (CPU)”),
the processor is configured to (see at least [0048]: “The CPU implements various functions by executing instruction”):
execute deceleration control (see at least [0021]: “When determination is made that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the obstacle, the controller performs the automatic braking control for avoiding collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle by generating the braking force with the braking device without the braking operation of the driver.”) for decelerating the vehicle when a predetermined deceleration condition is satisfied;
execute speed control (see at least [0022]: “The controller prohibits the automatic braking control when determination is made that the accelerator operation index value having a correlation with the accelerator operation of the driver is equal to or larger than the operation threshold. … The automatic braking control is terminated when the controller prohibits the automatic braking control while the automatic braking control is performed.”) of the vehicle according to an operation of an accelerator pedal by releasing the deceleration control when a predetermined operation of the accelerator pedal is detected during execution of the deceleration control; and
determine a possibility (see at least [0064]: “the collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object”; [0067]: “The collision prediction time TTC is calculated from Expression (1) based on a distance “d” between the obstacle and the driver's vehicle”; [0068]: “As the value of the collision prediction time TTC decreases, the possibility (risk) of collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle increases.”) that the vehicle and an object collide with each other when the object is detected in front of the vehicle, wherein,.
However, Ike does not explicitly teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high, the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low.
Johansson teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = no), the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower (see at least FIG. 3 step 131: “DAR >= Ta,2?” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 133: VAO = (DAR – Ta,1) / Ta,2) as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 129: “VAO = DAR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to limit applied acceleration compared with acceleration request. Doing so would enable an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Johansson further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so that the vehicle is accelerated at normal acceleration corresponding to a press amount of the accelerator pedal when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be low (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 129: “VAO = DAR”), and so that the vehicle is accelerated at acceleration lower than the normal acceleration corresponding to the press amount of the accelerator pedal when the collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high (see at least FIG. 3 step 131: “DAR >= Ta,2?” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 133: VAO = (DAR – Ta,1) / Ta,2; (DAR- Ta,1) / Ta,2 < DAR).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to limit applied acceleration compared with acceleration request. Doing so would enable an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Johansson further teaches wherein, in a case where a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high, when a press amount of the accelerator pedal is equal to or more than a fixed amount, the processor is configured to execute the speed control (see at least [0020]: “if the driver is not paying attention and keeps the accelerator pedal pushed, the vehicle would moderately accelerate. The limiting protocol can prohibit such acceleration is this would lead to the vehicle closing in too much on a preceding vehicle.”) of the vehicle so that acceleration of the vehicle becomes fixed (see at least [0020]: “acceleration is limited to a constant value in the step of limiting the acceleration of the vehicle”) acceleration, regardless of the press amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to apply a fixed acceleration amount. Doing so would “enable[] an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Ike further teaches wherein a predetermined operation of the accelerator pedal for releasing the deceleration control is an operation in which the accelerator pedal is pressed down by equal to or more than a predetermined amount (see at least [0022]: “The controller prohibits the automatic braking control when determination is made that the accelerator operation index value having a correlation with the accelerator operation of the driver is equal to or larger than the operation threshold. … The automatic braking control is terminated when the controller prohibits the automatic braking control while the automatic braking control is performed.”; [0033]: “The accelerator operation may be an operation for an accelerator pedal of the driver's vehicle.”) after execution of the deceleration control starts, or an operation in which the accelerator pedal is pressed down at a press speed equal to or more than a predetermined speed.
Regarding claim 14, Ike teach A vehicle control method for controlling a speed of a vehicle (see at least [0047]: “driver’s vehicle”) during traveling, the vehicle control method comprising:
executing deceleration control (see at least [0021]: “When determination is made that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the obstacle, the controller performs the automatic braking control for avoiding collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle by generating the braking force with the braking device without the braking operation of the driver.”) for decelerating the vehicle when a predetermined deceleration condition is satisfied;
executing speed control (see at least [0022]: “The controller prohibits the automatic braking control when determination is made that the accelerator operation index value having a correlation with the accelerator operation of the driver is equal to or larger than the operation threshold. … The automatic braking control is terminated when the controller prohibits the automatic braking control while the automatic braking control is performed.”) of the vehicle according to an operation of an accelerator pedal by releasing the deceleration control when a predetermined operation of the accelerator pedal is detected during execution of the deceleration control; and
determining a possibility (see at least [0064]: “the collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object”; [0067]: “The collision prediction time TTC is calculated from Expression (1) based on a distance “d” between the obstacle and the driver's vehicle”; [0068]: “As the value of the collision prediction time TTC decreases, the possibility (risk) of collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle increases.”) that the vehicle and an object collide with each other when the object is detected in front of the vehicle, wherein,
However, Ike does not explicitly teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high, the speed control of the vehicle is executed so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low.
Johansson teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = no), the speed control of the vehicle is executed so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower (see at least FIG. 3 step 131: “DAR >= Ta,2?” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 133: VAO = (DAR – Ta,1) / Ta,2) as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 129: “VAO = DAR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to limit applied acceleration compared with acceleration request. Doing so would enable an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Regarding claim 15, Ike teach A non-transitory recording medium (see at least [0048]: “Those ECUs are electric control units each including a microcomputer as a main part …. The microcomputer herein includes … a read-only memory (ROM)”) having recorded thereon a computer program (see at least [0048]: “The CPU implements various functions by executing instructions (programs or routines) stored in the ROM.”) that controls a speed of a vehicle (see at least [0047]: “driver’s vehicle”) during traveling, the computer program causing a computer to execute:
executing deceleration control (see at least [0021]: “When determination is made that the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the obstacle, the controller performs the automatic braking control for avoiding collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle by generating the braking force with the braking device without the braking operation of the driver.”) for decelerating the vehicle when a predetermined deceleration condition is satisfied;
executing speed control (see at least [0022]: “The controller prohibits the automatic braking control when determination is made that the accelerator operation index value having a correlation with the accelerator operation of the driver is equal to or larger than the operation threshold. … The automatic braking control is terminated when the controller prohibits the automatic braking control while the automatic braking control is performed.”) of the vehicle according to an operation of an accelerator pedal by releasing the deceleration control when a predetermined operation of the accelerator pedal is detected during execution of the deceleration control; and
determining a possibility (see at least [0064]: “the collision determination unit 11 determines whether the driver's vehicle has a strong possibility of colliding with the three-dimensional object”; [0067]: “The collision prediction time TTC is calculated from Expression (1) based on a distance “d” between the obstacle and the driver's vehicle”; [0068]: “As the value of the collision prediction time TTC decreases, the possibility (risk) of collision between the driver's vehicle and the obstacle increases.”) that the vehicle and an object collide with each other when the object is detected in front of the vehicle, wherein,
However, Ike does not explicitly teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high, the speed control of the vehicle is executed so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low.
Johansson teach when a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is determined to be high (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = no), the speed control of the vehicle is executed so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower (see at least FIG. 3 step 131: “DAR >= Ta,2?” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 133: VAO = (DAR – Ta,1) / Ta,2) as compared to a case where the collision possibility is determined to be low (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 129: “VAO = DAR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to limit applied acceleration compared with acceleration request. Doing so would enable an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1) and Feng et al. (US 20260051252 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ike and Johansson does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on a spacing that may be provided between the vehicle and the object at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range on a road.
Feng teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility (see at least [0010]: “determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle includes: determining the collision risk based on … a distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”) between the vehicle (see at least FIG. 5: vehicle 1) and the object, based on a spacing (see at least [0012]: “the distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle includes a lateral distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”) that may be provided between the vehicle and the object at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range (see at least [0085]: “if a lateral distance between an obstacle and the vehicle is less than or equal to a preset distance, the obstacle may be determined as an obstacle around the vehicle.”) on a road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Feng to determine a collision possibility based on lateral clearance. Doing so would help improve safety of the vehicle, as recognized by Feng in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng teach The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
Feng further teaches wherein the possible travel range is within a range (see at least [0085]: “if a lateral distance between an obstacle and the vehicle is less than or equal to a preset distance, the obstacle may be determined as an obstacle around the vehicle.”) in a width direction of a lane (FIG. 5: lane 2) in which the vehicle travels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Feng to consider lateral clearance in a width direction of a lane. Doing so would “help improve safety of the vehicle”, as recognized by Feng in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng teach The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
Feng further teaches wherein the possible travel range is within a range (see at least [0085]: “if a lateral distance between an obstacle and the vehicle is less than or equal to a preset distance, the obstacle may be determined as an obstacle around the vehicle.”) in a width direction of a road ([0026]: “a road on which the vehicle is located”) on which the vehicle travels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Feng to consider lateral clearance in a width direction of a road. Doing so would “help improve safety of the vehicle”, as recognized by Feng in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng teach The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
Johansson further teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so that acceleration of the vehicle with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal is lower as a spacing that may be provided between the vehicle and the object is smaller (see at least FIG. 3 step 127: “Ds >= Td” = yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 129: “VAO = DAR”; step 127: “Ds >= Td” = no [Wingdings font/0xE0] [Wingdings font/0xE0] [Wingdings font/0xE0] step 132: “VAO = 0” OR step 133: VAO = (DAR – Ta,1) / Ta,2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Johansson to reduce acceleration if spacing is tighter. Doing so would “enable an optimally comfortable and safe driving experience”, as recognized by Johansson in paragraph [0031].
Feng further teaches at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range on a road (see at least [0010]: “determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle includes: determining the collision risk based on … a distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”; [0012]: “the distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle includes a lateral distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Feng to consider lateral spacing when determining collision risk. Doing so would “help improve safety of the vehicle”, as recognized by Feng in the [Abstract].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng teach The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
Feng further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on a kind (see at least [0007]: “determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle”; [0009]: “A type of the obstacle includes but is not limited to another vehicle, a pedestrian, a non-motor vehicle, or a static obstacle.”) or a situation of the object in addition to a spacing (see at least [0010]: “determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the first obstacle based on the information about the first obstacle includes: determining the collision risk based on … a distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”; [0012]: “the distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle includes a lateral distance between the vehicle and the first obstacle.”) that may be provided between the vehicle and the object at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range on a road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Feng to consider lateral spacing and object type when determining collision risk. Doing so would “help improve safety of the vehicle”, as recognized by Feng in the [Abstract].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1) and Seshadri et al. (US 20220017077 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ike and Johansson does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on whether a driver of the vehicle has recognized the object.
Seshadri teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on whether a driver of the vehicle has recognized the object (see at least [0068]: “collision avoidance application 140 assesses the set of lane change data values (e.g., eye gaze direction, head position, driver attentiveness … , etc.) and generates a collision risk value (e.g., low, medium, high) based on at least a portion of the lane change data values included in the set.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Seshadri to consider driver attentiveness when determining collision risk. Doing so would “notify a driver of more potential collisions than would otherwise be detected”, as recognized by Seshadri in paragraph [0007].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1), Feng et al. (US 20260051252 A1), and Shmueli et al. (US 20220189307 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng teach The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
However, the combination of Ike, Johansson, and Feng does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on whether a driver of the vehicle has recognized the object, and, when the driver of the vehicle has not recognized the object, the processor is configured to determine that the collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is high, regardless of a spacing that may be provided between the vehicle and the object at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range on a road.
Shmueli teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object, based on (see at least [Abstract]: “a threat display module configured to determine an operating scenario based on a user attentiveness … and generate a notification to the user representing the threat”) whether a driver of the vehicle has recognized the object, and, when the driver of the vehicle has not recognized the object, the processor is configured to determine that the collision possibility between the vehicle and the object is high (see at least [0074]: “additional modalities (auditory and/or haptic) may be added to increase the sense of urgency conveyed to the user”), regardless (see at least [0098]: “visual content serves as a baseline modality. … haptics and sound are added as additional layer(s) to draw attention when needed. … in high urgency situations, all three modalities are used. In medium urgency situations, visual and haptics are employed when the user is attentive, and sound is added when inattentive.”) of a spacing (see at least [0068]: “The threat level is indicative of the urgency of a detected threat.”; [0068]: “The threat level may be determined based on considerations such as … distance between the ego vehicle and a detected object”) that may be provided between the vehicle and the object at a time at which the vehicle passes through a side of the object through a possible travel range on a road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Shmueli to treat with high urgency obstacles based on driver attentiveness regardless of vehicle / object spacing. Doing so would “enhance accident avoidance”, as recognized by Shmueli in paragraph [0043].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1) and Igarashi et al. (US 20070213920 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 9.
However, the combination of Ike and Johansson does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to provide notification to a driver that the vehicle is accelerated at acceleration lower than the normal acceleration corresponding to the press amount of the accelerator pedal when the vehicle is accelerated at the acceleration.
Igarashi teach wherein the processor is configured to provide notification (see at least [0172]: “The driver warning or the like relating to the accelerator angle A, therefore, can also be issued when the speed limiter is active.”) to a driver that the vehicle is accelerated at acceleration lower than (see at least [0024]: “During the operation of the speed limiter, even if the angle of the accelerator pedal which the driver steps on becomes too large, the speed limiter prevents a fuel injection rate from exceeding a value commensurate with the required speed.”) the normal acceleration corresponding to the press amount of the accelerator pedal when the vehicle is accelerated at the acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Igarashi to notify a driver that acceleration is limited. Doing so would “provide a fuel-saving management system that allows fuel-saving management and associated driver assistance to be conducted very smoothly”, as recognized by Igarashi in paragraph [0016].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al. (US 20220274591 A1) in view of Johansson (US 20230146809 A1) and Harada et al. (US 20180043885 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ike and Johansson teach The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
However, the combination of Ike and Johansson does not explicitly teach wherein, when normal control that is not after the deceleration control is released is executed, the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so as to become the same acceleration with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal, regardless of a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object.
Harada teach wherein, when normal control that is not after the deceleration control is released is executed (see at least FIG. 3 step S300: “automatic braking control is being executed?” = NO), the processor is configured to execute the speed control of the vehicle so as to become the same acceleration (see at least [0013]: “under the condition where the driving-force limiting control is being executed, the driving force may be limited even when the driver steps on the accelerator pedal”) with respect to a press amount of the accelerator pedal, regardless (see at least FIG. 3: even if S301: “automatic braking control start condition satisfied?” is true based on presence of obstacle, the step S308: “execute cancelation function” can still execute if the accelerator position is greater than a threshold (S302 = YES) and if the driving-force limiting control is not being executed (S304 = NO)) of a collision possibility between the vehicle and the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ike to incorporate the teachings of Harada to apply normal acceleration regardless of collision possibility when not operating after brake override. Doing so would “reduce a likelihood of the driver’s collision avoidance operation being obstructed due to a start of the automatic braking control”, as recognized by Harada in paragraph [0049].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US 20210237719 A1) teaches a vehicle system that limits applied acceleration relative to requested acceleration after a forward obstacle is no longer present (see paragraph [0030]).
Kelly et al. (US 20170088135 A1) teaches a vehicle system that limits maximum acceleration applied during driver override of vehicle speed control system initiated through accelerator pedal depression (see paragraph [0012]).
Irrgang et al. (US 20120262284 A1) teaches a vehicle system that issues an alarm to a driver when an obstacle is present but the driver’s field of view of obstructed (see FIG. 3, paragraph [0021]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights