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 .
Examiners Note
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-6,8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Togichi et al US 2021/0213967.
In Re 1-6 Togichi teaches:
[Claim 1] A control device for a vehicle (title abstract fig 1), wherein the control device is configured to:
judge that an accelerator pedal of the vehicle has been mistakenly operated when predetermined judgment conditions stand (s10 and or s20 figs 2a-b);
limit part or all of a drive force (s12) of the vehicle generated corresponding to an amount of depression of the accelerator pedal when judging that the accelerator pedal has been mistakenly operated; and
ease the judgment conditions while driver assist (para 45) in which acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle are performed automatically is being performed compared to (fig 2b s24 vs s22) when that driver assist is not being performed (para 15, fig 2b)(at least all figs and paras).
[Claim 2] The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to further ease the judgment conditions when acceleration is being automatically performed while the driver assist is being performed compared to when acceleration is not being performed (para 5-6, decrease threshold when accelerate, at least steps s22,s24,s44,s54 and fig 2b).
[Claim 3] The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to ease the judgment conditions only when acceleration is being automatically performed while the driver assist is being performed compared to when the driver assist is not being performed (fig 3a).
[Claim 4] The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to: judge that the judgment conditions stand when all of a plurality of conditions stand when driver assist is not being performed (fig 3b); and eliminate some of the conditions among the plurality of conditions while the driver assist is being performed so as to ease the judgment conditions (s40 through s42).
[Claim 5] The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the judgment conditions include at least the condition that any of an amount of depression or speed of depression of the accelerator pedal or a predetermined parameter correlated with the amount of depression of the accelerator pedal be greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (paras 4-16), and
the control device is configured to ease the judgment conditions by making the predetermined threshold value smaller while driver assist is being performed compared to when driver assist is not being performed (paras 5-6, fig 2b).
[Claim 6] The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to prohibit the judgment of mistaken operation of an accelerator pedal if driver assist is being performed and deceleration with a deceleration degree greater than or equal to a predetermined value is being automatically performed (paras 12,26, when decelerate < thr and speed adj active).
In Re 8 and 9, the control method of claim 8 and the non transitory computer storage medium of claim 9 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Tochigi as described above, further Tochigi para 29 teaches known non-transitory memories of known computer components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togichi et al US 2021/0213967 in view of Nagaya US 2012/0209488.
In Re 7, Togichi further teaches it is judged that the accelerator pedal has been mistakenly operated during that driver assist (s30 yes into s32 into s24, with positive determination per para 73).
Togichi does not teach however Nagaya teaches to stop the driver assist when (para 13). Nagaya further teaches safety is enhanced by canceling to driver during a clam state of mind para 13. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Nagaya’s cancellation to Togichi’s device to enhance safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including accidental accelerator-pedal presses are more likely when a driver-assist system is automatically controlling speed, because the driver’s foot may be off both pedals and the normal “feel” of driving is reduced, in that situation, a driver may mistake the accelerator for the brake during a sudden need to slow down. The problem is that the vehicle can then accelerate when the driver intended to stop or brake, aims to reduce unnecessary acceleration caused by that kind of mistaken pedal operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights