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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission 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.
While the title does encompass the invention it is generalized such that it is not clearly indicative of the invention. “Vehicle Control Apparatus” is applicable to nearly any system of modern vehicles; for example it could be applied to a vehicle’s air conditioning system, headlights, music/entertainment system, etc.
When the applicant’s specification and claims a reviewed it appears that the invention is directed to restricting operation of the anti-collision apparatus based on detected road width (divided roadway condition).
The following title is suggested: “VEHICLE ANTI-COLLISION APPARATUS FOR DIVIDED ROADWAYS”
The suggested title makes clear that the vehicle control apparatus is specifically a anti-collision which is adapted to function for divided roadways.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vehicle control apparatus” in claims 1-6, and 8. “apparatus” is a placeholder term which does not denote a structure/class of structures, “vehicle control apparatus” is not a term of art which denotes structure by itself, it is functionally claimed, and the claims do not recite or link structure to this apparatus.
From the specification the vehicle control apparatus will be understood to be a CPU, RAM, and ROM; i.e. a processor and memory with instructions. From page 8, lines 21-26 of the applicant’s specification.
“first acquisition unit”, placeholder term “unit”, and functionally claimed with no structure recited for the unit. From page 5 this “unit” is understood to be/include a yaw rate sensor and/or steering angle sensor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 7, it is directed to “a vehicle control apparatus” which functions the same as claim 1, the main difference between claims 1 and 7 is that claim 7 explicitly recites that the control apparatus comprises a processor and non-transitory memory with instructions; however due to the 112(f) interpretation of claim 1’s control apparatus these two parts are structure of the control apparatus of claim 1; thus claim 7 is substantially duplicate in that its only difference from claim 1 is included in claim 1’s 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites that the restriction condition “further includes” a yaw rate condition; this renders the scope of protection unclear in that when read in light of claim 1 it is unclear if claim 2 is reciting that the restriction condition is now both the lane width not being below a threshold and the yaw rate being above a threshold or if it is reciting that the restriction condition of claim 2 includes either the condition of claim 1 being satisfied or the condition of claim 2 being satisfied.
Put into rough mathematical terms claim 2 is unclear if the restriction condition requires both A AND B being true or if it is claiming that restriction condition = at least one of A or B being true. (with A and B being the different restriction conditions of claims 1 and 2 respectively)
Regarding Claim 3-7 they recite additional conditions included in the restriction condition claim (3) or execution condition (claims 4-6). They are indefinite, similar to claim 2, as they are unclear if the additional conditions they recite require that the overall restriction (or execution) condition have each individual condition being met or if only a singular condition included in the restriction (or execution) condition definition needs to be met for the overall condition to be satisfied.
Claim 2 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “at least either of” renders the scope of protection unclear in that it is uncertain if it is meant to be equivalent to “at least one of” or if the acquisition unit can only detect either the yaw or steering angle (i.e. should be interpreted as an exclusive “OR”). Put another-way it is unclear if “at least either of” is inclusive of both of the two options being detected or if it is excluding both of the two options being detected at one time. For judging the claim on its merits it will be assumed that “at least either of” is equivalent to “at least one” of the yaw or steering angle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “degree of restriction” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree of restriction” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Neither the claims nor the applicant’s specification provide any details or guidance as to how to calculate the corresponding “degree” of restriction for a given anti-collision apparatus current operation/restriction. The specification only mentions the “degree of restriction” in equivalent language to the claim. As such if a given change in the restriction(s) of an anti-collision apparatus represents a reduction in the restriction degree would vary from reader to reader based only on their subjective opinion as to how to calculate a “degree” of restriction.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, it is directed to a “vehicle control method”, however the claim then however then goes on to recite limitations of the apparatus, i.e. “wherein the vehicle control apparatus … ” ; the claim does not clearly introduce or indicate what the method of the claim is.
For judging the claim on its merits it will be interpreted as “wherein the vehicle control apparatus control method comprises: ….” (i.e. that the various limitations of what the control apparatus does/doesn’t do are the method)
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) 1, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210300345 A1, “VEHICLE AND CONTROL APPARATUS THEREOF”, Sato et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Sato teaches “A vehicle control apparatus that is mounted to a vehicle, the vehicle including an object detection unit that detects an object in a vicinity of the vehicle; an anti-collision apparatus that controls the vehicle to suppress a collision between the vehicle and the object resulting from the vehicle moving,”( [0030] A collision avoidance function that can be executed by the control apparatus 2 of the vehicle 1 will be described with reference to FIG. 2. Assume that, as shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle 1 is about to enter an intersection 201. The vehicle 1 can detect an object included in a detection region 202L, using the detection unit 43 (the radar 43) mounted on the front left side of the vehicle 1. Also, the vehicle 1 can detect an object included in the detection region 202R, using the detection unit 43 (the radar 43) on the front right side of the vehicle 1.);” and a lane detection unit that detects a boundary line demarcating a traffic lane ahead of the vehicle,”( [0021] The ECUs 22 and 23 control detection units 41 to 43 that detect the situation surrounding the vehicle, and perform information processing on their detection results. Each detection unit 41 is a camera for shooting an image ahead of the vehicle 1 (which may hereinafter be referred to as “camera 41”), and, in this embodiment, is installed at a roof front part on an interior side of the front window of the vehicle 1. By analyzing an image shot by a camera 41, it is possible to extract the contour of a target object and a demarcation line (white line, for example) of a traffic lane on a road.);” wherein the vehicle control apparatus does not restrict operation of the anti-collision apparatus in response to an execution condition being met and performs control restriction restricting operation of the anti-collision apparatus in response to a restriction condition being met, wherein the execution condition includes a divided roadway condition being met, the divided roadway condition being a width of the traffic lane determined based on the boundary line detected by the lane detection unit being less than a width of a traffic lane permitting two-way traffic, and the restriction condition includes the divided roadway condition not being met.”( [0040] The traffic lane determination condition, which will be described with reference to FIGS. 4A and 4B, is based on the width 402 of the traffic lane 302a. Specifically, as shown in FIG. 4A, in the case where the width 402 of the traffic lane 302a is larger than a threshold value 401, it is unlikely that, when the vehicle 1 make a left turn toward the traffic lane 302a, the vehicle 1 will stray onto the traffic lane 302b that is on the further side. In view of this, the control apparatus 2 does not set a vehicle travelling on the traffic lane 302b (for example, the vehicle 304), as a target for the collision avoidance operation. This threshold value may be 2.5 or 3.0 m, for example. The threshold value may also be determined based on the size and turning ability of the vehicle 1. The threshold value may be determined in advance and stored in the memory 20b.” Here teaches that when the detected traffic lane width is below a threshold value (does not permit two-way traffic) that the collision avoidance control is implemented/executed with the opposite lane (and potential other vehicles in said lane) as the target; when this condition is not met (width is such that two-way traffic is met) the collision control apparatus is ”restricted” in that it only implements collision avoidance for object/other vehicles within the lane the car it turning into. As illustrated in figures 4a/b posted below)
PNG
media_image1.png
620
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7-8 they are a control apparatus and method claims equivalent to claim 1 such that they have the same grounds of rejection.
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(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210300243 A1, “DRIVING ASSISTANCE APPARATUS”, Shimizu et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al does teach a first acquisition unit of the yaw rate and/or steering angle”( [0020] The ECU 21 controls an electronic power steering apparatus 3. The electronic power steering apparatus 3 includes a mechanism for steering front wheels according to a driver's driving operation (steering operation) on a steering wheel 31. The electronic power steering apparatus 3 also includes a motor that exerts drive force for assisting a steering operation or automatically steering the front wheels, a sensor that detects a steering angle, and the like.);”
However Sato et al does not teach the subsequent restriction condition of the yaw rate and/or steering angle.
Shimizu teaches a vehicle anti-collision control system”([0055]here teaches that in addition notification Shimizu’s system can perform collision avoidance control)” which includes “ the vehicle further includes a first acquisition unit that acquires at least either of a steering angle and a yaw rate of the vehicle;”( [0022] As illustrated in FIG. 1, a driving assistance system 10 according to one embodiment includes a radar device 21, an imaging device 22, a vehicle speed sensor 23, a steering angle sensor 24, a yaw rate sensor 25, a receiver 26, a warning device 27, and an electronic control unit (ECU) 30.);” and the restriction condition”( [0045] The area changer 36 reduces the warning area in a direction approaching the subject vehicle 40 in response to the determiner 34 determining the initiation of a turn. Reducing the warning area enables suppression of unnecessary notifications that may be provided in response to a vehicle, other than the subject vehicle, entering a warning area set at an inadequate position, e.g., in a lane of the turn destination. In response to the determiner 34 determining the completion of the turn after the initiation of the turn of the subject vehicle 40, the area changer 36 expands the warning area reduced after initiation of the turn, based on a traveling state of the subject vehicle 40 after the completion of the turn. By expanding the reduced warning area according to the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, the reduced warning area can timely and adequately be expanded while suppressing unnecessary notifications that may be provided in response to a vehicle, other than the subject vehicle, entering a warning area set at an inadequate position.” Here teaches that when the vehicle is determined to be in a turning state the warning (or from [0055] collision avoidance) control areas are restricted/set to suppress unnecessary warnings/notifications);” further includes a condition that a measurement value acquired by the first acquisition unit is greater than a first threshold prescribed in advance.”( [0037] The determiner 34 determines initiation and completion of a turn at an intersection where the subject vehicle 40 is turning. Preferably, the determiner 34 may be configured to determine initiation and completion of a turn at an intersection where the subject vehicle 40 is turning, based on the turn curve history stored in the storage 32 and the current curve radius of the subject vehicle 40. The determiner 34 may be configured to read the turn curve history specific to the intersection at which the subject vehicle is turning, based on the current location information, surroundings information or other information of the subject vehicle 40. The determiner 34 can calculate the current curve radius R of the subject vehicle 40 based on sensed values from the vehicle speed sensor 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the yaw rate sensor 25 or others.” Here teaches yaw rate or steering is used to determined curvature R, and later [0038]“…As a result, it is possible to set or change the warning area suitable for the current traveling state of the subject vehicle 40. The initiation-of-turn curve radius Rs and the completion-of-turn curve radius Re may be set to different values (Re>Rs or Re<Rs) or may be set to be equal (Rs=Re). “[0039]” For example, the determiner 34 may acquire the curve radius R of the subject vehicle 40 when actually traveling, and compare it with the read initiation-of-turn curve radius Rs. When R Rs is satisfied, the determiner 34 may determine that the subject vehicle 40 has initiated a turn at an intersection.” Here teaches that it is comparing to a threshold to determine if the vehicle is turning)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Sato to include the turning rate/curvature detection and warning area modification (restriction of collision avoidance apparatus) based on that detected state of the vehicle as taught by Shimizu et al. One would be motivated to implement these features to further improve the operation of the anti-collision system by selecting adjusting its function based on vehicle state, thereby reducing unnecessary warnings and/or collision avoidance controls. Shimizu teaches this motivation in (([0021] With this disclosure, in response to the determiner determining initiation of the turn, the area changer reduces the warning area in a direction approaching the subject vehicle. This can suppress unnecessary notifications. In addition, in response to the determiner determining the completion of the turn after determining the initiation of the turn, the area changer expands the reduced warning area according to a traveling state (e.g., a travel speed, a travel distance, a travel time or the like) of the subject vehicle after the completion of the turn is determined, which allows the warning area to be expanded timely and adequately while suppressing unnecessary notifications. As a result, throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters the intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state, an object around the subject vehicle can adequately be detected, unnecessary notifications can be suppressed, and driving safety of the subject vehicle can be ensured.” )
Regarding Claim 6, Sato does not teach reducing the restriction degree in response to determining that the vehicle is a straight-away zone after turning.
Shimizu teaches “a degree of restriction on the operation of the anti-collision apparatus is reduced in response to the vehicle being determined to be in a straight-ahead zone after turning.”( [0037] The determiner 34 determines initiation and completion of a turn at an intersection where the subject vehicle 40 is turning. Preferably, the determiner 34 may be configured to determine initiation and completion of a turn at an intersection where the subject vehicle 40 is turning, based on the turn curve history stored in the storage 32 and the current curve radius of the subject vehicle 40. The determiner 34 may be configured to read the turn curve history specific to the intersection at which the subject vehicle is turning, based on the current location information, surroundings information or other information of the subject vehicle 40. The determiner 34 can calculate the current curve radius R of the subject vehicle 40 based on sensed values from the vehicle speed sensor 23, the steering angle sensor 24, the yaw rate sensor 25 or others.
[0038] For example, the determiner 34 may read a specific curve radius as an initiation-of-turn curve radius Rs or a completion-of-turn curve radius Re based on the turn curve history stored in the storage 32 and compare the initiation-of-turn curve radius Rs or the completion-of-turn curve radius Re with the current curve radius R of the subject vehicle 40, thereby determining initiation of the turn or completion of the turn. This enables a quick determination suitable for the current traveling state of the subject vehicle 40. As a result, it is possible to set or change the warning area suitable for the current traveling state of the subject vehicle 40. The initiation-of-turn curve radius Rs and the completion-of-turn curve radius Re may be set to different values (Re>Rs or Re<Rs) or may be set to be equal (Rs=Re).” Here Shimizu teaches that when the completion of the turn is detected (vehicle is determined to be in a straight-away zone after turning) the warning systems are adjusted back to the non-turning configuration (i.e. degree of restriction is reduced + from [0021] it is taught that the returning to normal state (when it is determined the turn is finished) is expanding of the detection zone (i.e. reducing the degree of restriction))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Sato to include the turning rate/curvature detection and warning area modification (restriction of collision avoidance apparatus) based on that detected state of the vehicle as taught by Shimizu et al. One would be motivated to implement these features to further improve the operation of the anti-collision system by selecting adjusting its function based on vehicle state, thereby reducing unnecessary warnings and/or collision avoidance controls and allowing for safe operation over multiple driving states (Turning and non-turning states). Shimizu teaches this motivation in ([0021] With this disclosure, in response to the determiner determining initiation of the turn, the area changer reduces the warning area in a direction approaching the subject vehicle. This can suppress unnecessary notifications. In addition, in response to the determiner determining the completion of the turn after determining the initiation of the turn, the area changer expands the reduced warning area according to a traveling state (e.g., a travel speed, a travel distance, a travel time or the like) of the subject vehicle after the completion of the turn is determined, which allows the warning area to be expanded timely and adequately while suppressing unnecessary notifications. As a result, throughout a time period from when the subject vehicle enters the intersection to when the subject vehicle leaves the intersection and returns to a normal traveling state, an object around the subject vehicle can adequately be detected, unnecessary notifications can be suppressed, and driving safety of the subject vehicle can be ensured.” )
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180247538 A1; US 20190073903 A1; US 20210009117 A1; US 20210046935 A1; US 20210053589 A1; US 11004341 B2; US 20210300243 A1; US 20220227359 A1; US 20220266871 A1; US 20230008744 A1; US 20170113683 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights