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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 2-9 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 claim limitations “not adjust the target vehicle body speed according to the accelerating operation amount when the disturbance part is detected and the accelerating operation amount is less than or equal to a permission determination value, and adjust the target vehicle body speed according to the accelerating operation amount when the disturbance part is detected and the accelerating operation amount is larger than the permission determination value” as recited in claim 2 contradict the limitation “not adjust the target vehicle body speed according to the accelerating operation amount when the disturbance part is detected” as recited in claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
The examiner will interpret claim 2 as erasing the limitation “not adjust the target vehicle body speed according to the accelerating operation amount when the disturbance part is detected” from claim 1. As best understood by the examiner, the claims will be treated on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2023/0159028).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-7, Fukui discloses a driving assistance device configured to execute an assistance control for assisting traveling of a vehicle by causing a vehicle body speed of the vehicle to track a target vehicle body speed through adjustment of a driving force and a braking force of the vehicle (figs 1, 3-4, P35, 81, 86, etc), the driving assistance device comprising:
a target vehicle body speed setting unit configured to set the target vehicle body speed (target vehicle body speed P7, 95, 101; or target vehicle driving force P35, 81, 86, etc); and
a disturbance detection unit configured to detect a disturbance part present on a travel path of the vehicle (figs 1-2, 3: S104/S107, 4: S204/S207, etc: detect obstacle); wherein
the target vehicle body speed setting unit is configured to:
adjust the target vehicle body speed (via target driving force) according to an accelerating operation amount that is an operation amount of an accelerating operation member operated by a driver of the vehicle when the disturbance part is not detected (figs 1, 3: S104/S107->N, 4: S204/S207-N, P35, etc), and
not adjust the target vehicle body speed according to the accelerating operation amount when the disturbance part is detected (fig 3: S105-106/S108-109, 4: S205-206/S208-209, P3, 44-45, 80-81, 86, 101, etc).
Fukui discloses directly adjusting the target vehicle body speed in an alternative embodiment (P7, 95, 101), but does not explicitly disclose directly adjusting the target vehicle body speed (rather than target vehicle driving force) according to an accelerating operation amount.
However, adjusting a target vehicle driving force would also indirectly adjust a target vehicle body speed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fukui to adjust the target vehicle body speed, as suggested by Fukui, in order to improve safety by directly controlling the speed of the vehicle in addition to the driving force of the vehicle, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 10, Fukui further discloses that while the accelerating operation member is being operated during execution of the assistance control, adjustment of the driving force and the braking force for causing the vehicle body speed to track the target vehicle body speed is suspended to generate the driving force based on the accelerating operation amount (P86, etc).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 5 and 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights