DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 7/2/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim 3 were canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed “As noted hereinabove, claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as allegedly being indefinite. The rejections are respectfully traversed. The Examiner takes the position that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite. However, the claims have been amended to clarify their meaning. As tentatively agreed during the telephone interview, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections have been overcome. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested” on 7/1/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of 1-8 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “Mizuno discloses a display control unit that outputs a control signal to a display to inform the driver via the display to the effect that difference between current travel mode and autonomous travel mode calculated is great. Mizuno, Para. [0080]. The Examiner equates this display to the claimed feature of notifying the driver that high response mode is set. However, Mizuno fails to disclose that an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time is set to a first value, which is larger than a second value that is set when the high response mode is not set, as recited in amended independent claim 5. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Mizuno fails to disclose each and every feature of amended independent claim 5” on 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Para 79 of Mizuno disclosed “the routine proceeds to S6, in which the mode setting unit 54 sets travel mode selected by the travel mode select switch 332, i.e., sets travel mode selected from among economy mode, normal mode and sport mode is selected. Next, in S7, the mode setting unit 54 determines whether difference between response evaluation value γ corresponding to travel mode selected in S6 and response evaluation value γ corresponding to travel mode calculated in S2 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, i.e., whether travel mode divergence is great” and Para 80 disclosed “If a positive decision is made in S7, the routine proceeds to S8, and if a negative decision is made, proceeds to S5. In S8, the display control unit 47 outputs a control signal (information signal) to the display 333 to inform the driver via the display 333 to the effect that difference between current travel mode and autonomous travel mode calculated in S2 is great, whereafter the program goes to S5”. The combination of the mode setting unit sets travel mode and determines whether difference between response evaluation values is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, lastly the display control unit 47 outputs a control signal (information signal) to the display 333 to inform the driver via the display 333 to the effect that difference between current travel mode and autonomous travel mode is great would fully encompass the claimed limitation.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “Applicant respectfully submits that Jeon in view of Mizuno fails to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claims 1, 7 and 8. In particular Jeon in view of Mizuno fails to teach or suggest the features regarding "determine whether a high response mode is set for a host vehicle; upon determination that the high response mode is set, determine whether a drive assist mode is applied; upon determination that the drive assist mode is not applied, set an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a first value; upon determination that the drive assist mode is applied, determine whether traffic congestion around the vehicle is detected; upon determination that traffic congestion is not detected around the vehicle, set the upper limit of the amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a second value that is less than the first value; upon determination that traffic congestion is detected around the vehicle, set the upper limit of the amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the vehicle to a third value that is less than the second value", as recited in amended independent claim 1 and similarly recited in amended independent claims 7 and 8.” on 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the amended limitation is fully encompassed by the combination of Jeon and Mizuno. In particular, Para 76-79 of Mizuno disclosed “determine whether a high response mode is set for a host vehicle; upon determination that the high response mode is set, determine whether a drive assist mode is applied; upon determination that the drive assist mode is not applied, set an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a first value” while Jeon disclosed the limitations regarding the traffic congestion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US20190248369A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno teaches A vehicle controller comprising a processor configured to:
notify a driver of a host vehicle, via a notification device provided in the host vehicle, that high response mode is set(Mizuno: Para 79 “the routine proceeds to S6, in which the mode setting unit 54 sets travel mode selected by the travel mode select switch 332, i.e., sets travel mode selected from among economy mode, normal mode and sport mode is selected. Next, in S7, the mode setting unit 54 determines whether difference between response evaluation value γ corresponding to travel mode selected in S6 and response evaluation value γ corresponding to travel mode calculated in S2 is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, i.e., whether travel mode divergence is great”; Para 80 “In S8, the display control unit 47 outputs a control signal (information signal) to the display 333 to inform the driver via the display 333 to the effect that difference between current travel mode and autonomous travel mode calculated in S2 is great, whereafter the program goes to S5”; i.e. sport mode is selected and the difference between response evaluation value is equal to or greater than a predetermined value then outputs a control signal (information signal) to the display 333 to inform the driver indicating high response mode is set), in which, when drive assist mode, in which travel of the host vehicle is controlled depending on a distance between a vehicle ahead and the host vehicle(Mizuno: Para 46 “In following mode, the action plan generation unit 45 generates, for example, travel plan data for suitably controlling inter-vehicle distance to a forward vehicle to target inter-vehicle distance in accordance with vehicle speed”), an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time is set to a first value, which is larger than a second value that is set when the high response mode is not set(Mizuno: 69 “The mode setting unit 54 sets a travel mode having acceleration performance (acceleration response) matched to the travel pattern recognized by the travel pattern recognition unit 52, i.e., matched to follow-evaluation value β. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing relationship between follow-evaluation value β and response evaluation value γ obtained by numerically quantifying acceleration response, stored in the memory unit 42 in advance. As shown in FIG. 11, response evaluation value γ is minimum (γ1) in follow-evaluation value β range of less than β1 and gradually increases in follow-evaluation value β range of not less than β1 and less than β2. Moreover, response evaluation value γ is constant (γ2) in follow-evaluation value β range of not less than β2 and less than β3, gradually increases in follow-evaluation value β range of not less than β3 and less than β4, and is maximum (γ3) in follow-evaluation value β range of not less than β4.”; Para 32 “Economy mode, normal mode and sport mode can be selected in manual drive mode and in self-drive mode, while autonomous travel mode can be select only in self-drive mode”; i.e. sport mode encompasses high response mode).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US20230059643A1) in view of Mizuno (US20190248369A1).
In regards to claim 1, Jeon teaches A vehicle controller comprising:
a processor (Jeon: Para 49 “each control unit may include a communication device, which communicates with other control units or sensors, a memory, which stores therein an operating system, logic commands, and input/output information, and one or more processors, which perform determinations, calculations, and decisions necessary for control of the function peculiar thereto”) configured to:
…determine whether traffic congestion around the vehicle is detected(Jeon: Para 17 “the determining a second correction value may include increasing the second correction value when the current driving road corresponds to the specific road type, when the current driving lane is not a passing lane, and when the road congestion is greater than the threshold value”; Para 88 “the road condition determination unit 113 may determine a correction value for the acceleration limit level based on whether the current driving road is a specific road on which the vehicle can travel at a relatively high speed (e.g. an expressway or an interstate highway), on whether the current driving lane is a passing lane, and on road congestion”);
upon determination that traffic congestion is not detected around the vehicle, set the upper limit of the amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a second value that is less than the first value(Jeon: Para 94 “If the road congestion is greater than a predetermined threshold value (Yes in S550), the road condition determination unit 113 may apply +1 to the acceleration limit level correction value in consideration of the road condition (S560). If the road congestion is less than or equal to the threshold value (No in S550), or if the current driving road does not correspond to a specific road type (No in S520), the road condition determination unit 113 may not modify the acceleration limit level correction value (S570)”; Para 95 “the limit acceleration calculation unit 114 may determine a final acceleration limit level by combining the acceleration limit level correction value of the driver acceleration intention determination unit 112 and the acceleration limit level correction value of the road condition determination unit 113 with the base value of the acceleration limit level of the driver setting determination unit 111, and may calculate a limit acceleration value alma based thereon”);
upon determination that traffic congestion is detected around the vehicle, set the upper limit of the amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the vehicle to a third value that is less than the second value(Jeon: Para 94 “If the road congestion is greater than a predetermined threshold value (Yes in S550), the road condition determination unit 113 may apply +1 to the acceleration limit level correction value in consideration of the road condition (S560). If the road congestion is less than or equal to the threshold value (No in S550), or if the current driving road does not correspond to a specific road type (No in S520), the road condition determination unit 113 may not modify the acceleration limit level correction value (S570)”; Para 95 “the limit acceleration calculation unit 114 may determine a final acceleration limit level by combining the acceleration limit level correction value of the driver acceleration intention determination unit 112 and the acceleration limit level correction value of the road condition determination unit 113 with the base value of the acceleration limit level of the driver setting determination unit 111, and may calculate a limit acceleration value alma based thereon”); and
control travel of the host vehicle so that the rate of change in acceleration is less than or equal to the set upper limit(Jeon: Para 52 “a vehicle according to an embodiment may include a driving source 300, a torque calculation controller 100, which calculates a correction torque obtained by applying an acceleration limit to a driver demand torque in the state in which acceleration limit control is activated, and a driving source controller 200, which controls the driving source 300 to output the correction torque calculated by the torque calculation controller 100”).
Yet Jeon do not explicitly teach determine whether a high response mode is set for a host vehicle;
upon determination that the high response mode is set, determine whether a drive assist mode is applied;
upon determination that the drive assist mode is not applied, set an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a first value;
upon determination that the drive assist mode is applied….
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mizuno teaches determine whether a high response mode is set for a host vehicle(Mizuno: Para 76 “in S2, the mode setting unit 54 uses characteristics of FIG. 11 stored in the memory unit in advance to calculate a travel mode whose acceleration response matches follow-evaluation value β calculated in S1. To be more exact, it calculates response evaluation value γ corresponding to the travel mode”; 69 “Response evaluation values γ1, γ2 and γ3 correspond to economy mode, normal mode and sport mode, respectively. The mode setting unit 54 therefore sets travel mode to economy mode when follow-evaluation value β is less than β1 (economy range), to normal mode when follow-evaluation value β is not less than β2 and less than β3 (normal range), and to sport mode when follow-evaluation value β is not less than β4 (sport range)”);
upon determination that the high response mode is set, determine whether a drive assist mode is applied(Mizuno: Para 77 “in S3, whether autonomous travel mode is selected by the travel mode select switch 332 is determined. If a positive decision is made in S3, the routine proceeds to S4, in which the mode setting unit 54 sets travel mode calculated in S2”);
upon determination that the drive assist mode is not applied, set an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a first value(Mizuno: Para 79 “On the other hand, if a negative decision is made in S3, the routine proceeds to S6, in which the mode setting unit 54 sets travel mode selected by the travel mode select switch 332, i.e., sets travel mode selected from among economy mode, normal mode and sport mode is selected”; 69 “Response evaluation values γ1, γ2 and γ3 correspond to economy mode, normal mode and sport mode, respectively. The mode setting unit 54 therefore sets travel mode to economy mode when follow-evaluation value β is less than β1 (economy range), to normal mode when follow-evaluation value β is not less than β2 and less than β3 (normal range), and to sport mode when follow-evaluation value β is not less than β4 (sport range)”);
upon determination that the drive assist mode is applied(Mizuno: Para 77 “in S3, whether autonomous travel mode is selected by the travel mode select switch 332 is determined. If a positive decision is made in S3, the routine proceeds to S4, in which the mode setting unit 54 sets travel mode calculated in S2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle controller of Jeon with the feature of determine whether a high response mode is set for a host vehicle; upon determination that the high response mode is set, determine whether a drive assist mode is applied; upon determination that the drive assist mode is not applied, set an upper limit of an amount of change in acceleration per unit time for the host vehicle to a first value; upon determination that the drive assist mode is applied disclosed by Mizuno. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “controlling the actuator so that the vehicle follows the forward vehicle in the travel mode set in the setting” (Mizuno: Para 5).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Jeon and Mizuno teaches The vehicle controller according to claim 1, and Mizuno further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to stop applying the high response mode while the drive assist mode is applied(Mizuno: Para 32 “Economy mode, normal mode and sport mode can be selected in manual drive mode and in self-drive mode, while autonomous travel mode can be select only in self-drive mode”; i.e. autonomous travel mode (drive assist mode) can be select only in self-drive mode and sport mode is not available(stop applying the high response mode)). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Jeon and Mizuno as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Jeon and Mizuno teaches The vehicle controller according to claim 1, and Jeon further teaches wherein the processor decreases the upper limit as a speed of the host vehicle decreases (Jeon: Para 58 “The limit acceleration determination unit 110 may calculate a limit acceleration limit, which is the target of acceleration limit control, in consideration of a vehicle speed, a drive mode, an acceleration limit level set value, an accelerator pedal position sensor (APS) value, an APS variation ΔAPS, a road type, driving lane information, and road congestion”).
In regards to claim 6, Mizuno teaches The vehicle controller according to claim 5, …wherein the processor gives notification that the high response mode is set(Mizuno: Para 80 “In S8, the display control unit 47 outputs a control signal (information signal) to the display 333 to inform the driver via the display 333 to the effect that difference between current travel mode and autonomous travel mode calculated in S2 is great, whereafter the program goes to S5”) while Jeon further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to detect traffic congestion around the host vehicle(Jeon: Para 17 “the determining a second correction value may include increasing the second correction value when the current driving road corresponds to the specific road type, when the current driving lane is not a passing lane, and when the road congestion is greater than the threshold value”; Para 58 “The limit acceleration determination unit 110 may calculate a limit acceleration alimit, which is the target of acceleration limit control, in consideration of a vehicle speed, a drive mode, an acceleration limit level set value, an accelerator pedal position sensor (APS) value, an APS variation ΔAPS, a road type, driving lane information, and road congestion”) …before the host vehicle starts decelerating after the traffic congestion is detected(Jeon: Para 93 “The determination of road congestion may use real-time traffic information, or may use information acquired through a sensor, such as a vision sensor, RADAR, or LIDAR, but the invention is not limited thereto”; Para 94 “If the road congestion is greater than a predetermined threshold value (Yes in S550), the road condition determination unit 113 may apply +1 to the acceleration limit level correction value in consideration of the road condition (S560). If the road congestion is less than or equal to the threshold value (No in S550), or if the current driving road does not correspond to a specific road type (No in S520), the road condition determination unit 113 may not modify the acceleration limit level correction value (S570)”; i.e. the acceleration limit level is adjusted with real-time traffic information before starts decelerating). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Jeon and Mizuno as in Claim 1 above.
As per claim 7, it recites A method for vehicle control having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 8, it recites A non-transitory recording medium that stores a computer program for vehicle control, the computer program causing a processor mounted on a host vehicle to execute a process having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Jeon further teaches A non-transitory recording medium that stores a computer program for vehicle control (Jeon: Para 49 “each control unit may include a communication device, which communicates with other control units or sensors, a memory, which stores therein an operating system, logic commands, and input/output information, and one or more processors, which perform determinations, calculations, and decisions necessary for control of the function peculiar thereto”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gotou (US20210276550A1) disclosed a method for generating a target vehicle speed of a driving-assisted vehicle, in which a target vehicle speed of a host vehicle is generated in accordance with a speed limit of a travel path of the host vehicle. During travel, the speed limit of the travel path of the host vehicle is acquired. A target acceleration is generated together with the generation of the target vehicle speed in accordance with the speed limit. During generation of the target acceleration, an acceleration limit value is set so as to increase in a direction of relaxing a limitation on acceleration correspondingly with respect to an increase in the speed limit.
Kanoh (US20220119000A1) disclosed a control system for a vehicle capable of traveling in a first traveling state and a second traveling state is provided. The second traveling state requires an operation related to traveling by a passenger more than the first traveling state. The system changes, based on a traveling situation of the vehicle, an upper limit speed at which the vehicle can travel in the first traveling state. The system performs notification to the passenger of a request for a predetermined operation at a timing when a traveling speed of the vehicle reaches a predetermined speed when switching from the first traveling state to the second traveling state. The system switches to the second traveling state when detecting the predetermined operation by the passenger. A difference between the upper limit speed and the predetermined speed is increased in a case where the upper limit speed is high compared to a case where the upper limit speed is low.
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 WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/21/26
Prosecution Insights