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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-15 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a controller that executes speed control to assist with driving, wherein the speed control moves the vehicle away from the vehicle ahead “such that a positional relationship between the lean vehicle and a vehicle ahead approaches a target state that varies according to an operation amount of the accelerator operation” (Independent claims 1 and 15). The claims disclose a clear positive recitation of vehicle speed control using a controller in the vehicle. Therefore the claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt US20190248367A1 in view of Baier et al. US20190232961A1 (henceforth Baier) further in view of Saigusa et al. US20170369055A1 (henceforth Saigusa)
Regarding claim 1,
Knitt discloses:
A controller (20) for a rider-assistance system (10) that assists with driving by a rider of a lean vehicle (1), (See at least Fig. 2 and Para. 0009, “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a system for providing target tracking and adaptive cruise control for the motorcycle”. A controller provides a ride-assistance system (i.e. adaptive cruise control) for a motorcycle.)
the controller configured to: execute, as rider-assistance operation to assist with driving by the rider, the speed control being executed to control a speed of the lean vehicle (1) such that a positional relationship between the lean vehicle (1) and a vehicle ahead (2) located ahead of the lean vehicle (1) approaches a target state (See at least Fig. 10 and Para. 0048-0049, wherein the adaptive cruise control includes controlling the speed of the motorcycle (i.e. the lean vehicle 1) such that a positional relationship between the motorcycle and the vehicle ahead approaches a target state (i.e. stays within a separation distance).)
Knitt does not specifically state that the controller is configured to: execute, as driver-assistance operation to assist with driving by the driver, speed control at least during an accelerator operation by the driver, the speed control being executed to control a speed of the vehicle (1) such that a positional relationship between the vehicle (1) and a vehicle ahead (2) located ahead of the vehicle (1) approaches a target state that varies according to an operation amount of the accelerator operation, and determine following safety of the vehicle (1) to follow the vehicle ahead (2), wherein during execution of the speed control, in the case where the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than a standard, the controller (20) executes speed adjustment assistance operation that is operation to assist with speed adjustment for moving the vehicle (1).
However, Baier teaches:
the controller is configured to: execute, as driver-assistance operation to assist with driving by the driver, speed control at least during an accelerator operation by the driver (See at least Para. 0035), the speed control being executed to control a speed of the vehicle (1) such that a positional relationship between the vehicle (1) and a vehicle ahead (2) located ahead of the vehicle (1) approaches a target state that varies according to an operation amount of the accelerator operation, (See at least Fig. 2 and Para. 0025 ”Distance controller 102 inputs an accelerator pedal angle 120 of an accelerator pedal 122 of the ego vehicle to determine a distance target value 118. Distance target value 118 is determined using the input values.” The target state (i.e. the distance target value 118) varies according to an operation amount of the accelerator operation. Additionally, see Para. 0035.)
and determine following safety of the vehicle (1) to follow the vehicle ahead (2), wherein during execution of the speed control, in the case where the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than a standard, the controller (20) executes speed adjustment assistance operation that is operation to assist with speed adjustment for moving the vehicle (1).
(See at least Para. 0007, wherein the distance target value is a safety distance. Further see at least Para. 0035, “If vehicle 200 approaches preceding vehicle 202, distance 204 decreases. If distance 204 approaches distance target value 118, the distance controller thus reduces the power request associated with instantaneous accelerator pedal angle 120 of accelerator pedal 122 by a power correction value in order to slow down vehicle 200 until a velocity of vehicle 200 approximately corresponds to a velocity of preceding vehicle 202 and distance 204 approximately corresponds to distance target value 118. If a differential velocity between vehicles 200, 202 is too great to be able to be equalized via the power request, a brake request is output to a braking system of vehicle 200 via a brake intervention value”. When the safety is lower than a threshold, the controller executes a speed adjustment assistant operation to assist with speed adjustment for moving the vehicle (1).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above since “While a distance target value is fixedly specified in conventional distance limiters, an option is to be provided by the distance controller presented here of being able to adapt the distance target value dynamically to the wishes of the driver within certain limits.” (Para. 0008, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Knitt and Baier do not specifically state wherein the speed adjustment assistant operation to assist with speed adjustment moves the vehicle away from the vehicle ahead. However, Saigusa teaches:
wherein the speed adjustment assistant operation to assist with speed adjustment moves the vehicle away from the vehicle ahead
(See at least Para. 0117, “the ACC computer system 404 can determine a safe time headway distance between the host vehicle 104 and the remote vehicle 110. The ACC system 400 can thereby control a deceleration of the host vehicle 104 to increase the time headway to a safe following distance” and Para. 0119, “increasing the time headway distance can result in a longer following distance to the lead vehicle from a host vehicle that will enable greater lead time for the host vehicle to begin braking in the event of a slowdown”. When it is determined that the safety is under a threshold, the vehicle is controlled to move the vehicle away from the vehicle ahead (i.e. increasing its distance), to enable greater lead time for the host vehicle to begin braking in the event of a slowdown.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Saigusa to include the limitations above since “the increase in following distance D1 advantageously provides a driver of the host vehicle 104 additional time to apply a braking force and/or decelerate in reaction to hard braking by the remote vehicle 110. An increase of the following distance D1 when the tailgating vehicle 1110 is detected can also be beneficial to the tailgating vehicle 1110. The lighter braking force that can be applied by the host vehicle 104 in reaction to hard braking by the remote vehicle 100 can provide the tailgating vehicle 1110 additional time to react to hard braking event, thereby reducing risk of a collision” (Para. 0129, Saigusa). This would create a more robust and safe adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein controller (20) determines the following safety on the basis of positional relationship information that is information on the positional relationship.
However, Baier teaches:
wherein controller (20) determines the following safety on the basis of positional relationship information that is information on the positional relationship. (See at least Para. 0007 and 0035, wherein the safety is tied to the following distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the positional relationship information includes density information that is information on density between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2).
However, Baier teaches:
wherein the positional relationship information includes density information that is information on density between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2).
(See at least Para. 0035, wherein the positional relationship information includes density information that is the inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead.)
Examiner Note: The claimed “density information” between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead is not information with regards to objects in the environment between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead. The specifications and claims 4-5 specifically disclose that the “density information” is information about the inter-vehicle distance and/or a passing time difference between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the “density information” as inter-vehicle distance and the passing time difference between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where inter-vehicle distance information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the density information is information indicating that an inter-vehicle distance (D1) between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is shorter than a reference distance.
However, Baier teaches:
wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where inter-vehicle distance information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the density information is information indicating that an inter-vehicle distance (D1) between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is shorter than a reference distance. (See at least Para. 0007 and 0035, wherein a corrective action is triggered based on a comparison of the actual distance to a reference/target value, which includes determining that the safety is lower than a standard based on the inter-vehicle distance between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead is shorter than a reference distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where passing time difference information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the density information is information indicating that a passing time difference between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is shorter than a reference time difference.
However, Baier teaches:
wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where passing time difference information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the density information is information indicating that a passing time difference between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is shorter than a reference time difference. (See at least Para. 0011 and 0030, wherein the “density info” is the time gap it is determined that the following safety is lower than a standard when the passing time difference between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead is shorter than a reference time difference.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the positional relationship information includes stability information that is information on stability of an inter-vehicle distance (D1) between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2).
However, Baier teaches:
wherein the positional relationship information includes stability information that is information on stability of an inter-vehicle distance (D1) between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2). (See at least Para. 0029, “Distance 204 between vehicles 200, 202 decreases due to the differential velocity. Distance 204 is measured by at least one distance sensor of ego vehicle 200 and controlled by the distance controller. In order that ego vehicle 200 does not fall below velocity-dependent distance target value 118 to target vehicle 202, the distance controller reduces the power request from a velocity-dependent damping distance 206 to the target vehicle 202, independently of accelerator pedal angle 120, until distance 205 corresponds to distance target value 118 and both vehicles 200, 202 travel at the same velocity” which discloses information that indicates that a relative speed between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead is lower than a reference speed.)
Examiner Note: The stability information as claimed (see claim 7) and the specifications do not recite a “stability” with regards to how stable the motorcycle is. The specifications and claim 7 recites that the stability information is “information indicating that an absolute value of a relative speed between the lean vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is lower than a reference speed”. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claim as information indicating a relative speed between the vehicles is lower than a reference speed.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (20) automatically executes the speed adjustment without relying on the rider's operation. However, Baier teaches:
wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (20) automatically executes the speed adjustment without relying on the rider's operation (See at least Para. 0035, “If a differential velocity between vehicles 200, 202 is too great to be able to be equalized via the power request, a brake request is output to a braking system of vehicle 200 via a brake intervention value.” The controller automatically executes the speed adjustment.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11,
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the controller (20) changes a speed change, which is automatically generated to the vehicle (1) by the speed adjustment, according to the following safety.
However, Baier teaches:
wherein the controller (20) changes a speed change, which is automatically generated to the vehicle (1) by the speed adjustment, according to the following safety. (See at least Para. 0039, “To keep distance 204 corresponding to distance target value 118, the distance controller operates the braking system of vehicle 200. The narrower the value range, the greater are possible brake interventions of the distance controller to safely decelerate vehicle 200 without tailgating preceding vehicle 202.” The controller automatically executes the speed adjustment according to the following safety.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt to incorporate the teachings of Baier to include the limitations above “so as not to endanger the safety of both vehicles traveling one behind the other in all traffic situations, for example, in the event of an abrupt deceleration of the preceding vehicle.” (Para. 0007, Baier). Furthermore, “A natural driving experience may thus be achieved” (Para. 0004, Baier). This would create a more robust adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt and Baier The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
Knitt and Baier do not specifically state wherein the controller (20) restricts the speed adjustment assistance operation on the basis of a determination result of following safety of a vehicle behind, which is located behind the lean vehicle (1), to follow the lean vehicle (1). However, Saigusa teaches:
wherein the controller (20) restricts the speed adjustment assistance operation on the basis of a determination result of following safety of a vehicle behind, which is located behind the lean vehicle (1), to follow the lean vehicle (1).
(See at least Para. 0117 and Para. 0129, “By preemptively increasing the following distance D1 after detection of the tailgating vehicle 1110, if hard braking occurs by the lead/remote vehicle 110, the ACC computer system 404 can advantageously apply less braking force to, and/or decelerate, the host vehicle 104.” The speed adjustment is restricted on the basis of the following safety of a vehicle behind the lean vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Saigusa to include the limitations above since “An increase of the following distance D1 when the tailgating vehicle 1110 is detected can also be beneficial to the tailgating vehicle 1110. The lighter braking force that can be applied by the host vehicle 104 in reaction to hard braking by the remote vehicle 100 can provide the tailgating vehicle 1110 additional time to react to hard braking event, thereby reducing risk of a collision” (Para. 0129, Saigusa). This would create a more robust and safe adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa further in view of Isogai et al. US20010039472A1 (henceforth Isogai)
Regarding claim 7,
Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 and 6 above.
Knitt does not specifically state wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where relative speed information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the stability information is information indicating that an absolute value of a relative speed between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is lower than a reference speed.
However, Isogai teaches:
wherein the controller (20) determines that the following safety is lower than the standard in the case where relative speed information between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) as the stability information is information indicating that an absolute value of a relative speed between the vehicle (1) and the vehicle ahead (2) is lower than a reference speed. (See at least Para. 0035, “situation requiring sharp response is judged by checking whether or not a distance from the controlled vehicle to the preceding vehicle is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value and whether or not an absolute value of the relative speed is equal to or smaller than a predetermined value”. A situation requires sharp response determines that the safety is lower than a standard, and it is based on the absolute value of a relative speed between the vehicle and the vehicle ahead is lower than a reference speed.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Isogai to include the limitations above since “the control system may erroneously detect the relative speed or relative acceleration as a negative value due to measuring error of a distance sensor. In such a case, to prevent two vehicles from approaching too closely, the control system activates the braking device to decelerate the following vehicle to maintain an adequate distance between two vehicles. This will give unpleasant feeling to passengers aboard on the vehicle since there is no circumstances requiring the braking operation” (Para. 0003, Isogai). This would create a more robust system for controlling a distance between traveling vehicles. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Isogai. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa further in view of Kobayashi et al. US20020134602A1 (henceforth Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 8,
Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Knitt and Baier do not specifically state wherein in the case where the determination that the following safety is lower than the standard continues for a shorter time than a reference time, the controller (20) does not execute the speed adjustment assistance operation. However, Kobayashi teaches:
wherein in the case where the determination that the following safety is lower than the standard continues for a shorter time than a reference time, the controller (20) does not execute the speed adjustment assistance operation. (See at least Para. 0106, wherein the vehicle speed control is cancelled when the following safety is lower than the standard continues for a shorter time than a reference time.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi to include the limitations above in order to “to provide an adaptive cruise control system which control a vehicle speed of a host vehicle so as to prevent a driver from having strange feeling” (Para. 0004, Kobayashi). This would create a more robust and safe adaptive cruise control system such that abrupt and unwanted deceleration is avoided. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Kobayashi. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa further in view of Swoboda et al. US20060152350A1 (henceforth Swoboda).
Regarding claim 9,
Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Knitt and Baier do not specifically state wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (20) makes a notification that instructs the driver to perform an operation for the speed adjustment.
However, Swoboda teaches:
wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (20) makes a notification that instructs the driver to perform an operation for the speed adjustment. (See at least Para. 0015, “With a combination of relative speed Vrel and distance d, whose diagram point, according to FIG. 2, lies on the left below curve 21, the distance and speed controller, due to the limited deceleration capability, would not be able to prevent a collision with the preceding target object. In this case, the driver of the vehicle is prompted personally to initiate a deceleration, the deceleration values of which are quantitatively higher than those achievable by the system, so that the driver can avoid a collision by a brake intervention.” The notification (i.e. prompt) instructs the driver to perform an operation for the speed adjustment.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Swoboda to include the limitations above in order to “notify the driver of a motor vehicle equipped with an adaptive distance and speed controller, in which a takeover prompt is activated, informing the driver that the vehicle is coming critically close to a target object” (Para, 0001, Swoboda). This would create a more robust and safe adaptive cruise control system. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Swoboda. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, Baier, Saigusa and Swoboda further in view of Schell US6371890B1.
Regarding claim 12,
Knitt, Baier, Saigusa, and Swoboda discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 9 above. Knitt and Baier does not specifically state wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (2220) outputs a control command to a control section that controls rotation of an accelerator grip (19), which accepts the accelerator operation, in the lean vehicle (1).
However, Schell teaches:
wherein in the speed adjustment assistance operation, the controller (2220) outputs a control command to a control section that controls rotation of an accelerator grip (19), which accepts the accelerator operation, in the lean vehicle (1). (See at least Column 1 lines 34-45, “an ‘active’ turning handle is provided which controls the complete longitudinal dynamics (that is, the acceleration and the deceleration of the motorcycle) and simultaneously sends a feedback to the driver. Since the positive or negative torque exerted on the turning handle is a measurement of an intended increase or the reduction of the speed, while the rotational position of the handle is controlled as a function of the vehicle speed, the driver feels the occurring acceleration or deceleration of the motorcycle directly on the turning handle.” The controller outputs a control command to control rotation of an accelerator grip which accepts the accelerator operation in the lean vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Schell to include the limitations above since “the driver feels the occurring acceleration or deceleration of the motorcycle directly on the turning handle. The combination turning handle according to the invention therefore permits a close connection between the driver and the motorcycle, which promotes driving safety” (Column 1 lines 40-46, Schell). This would create a more robust and safe turning handle on a motorcycle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Schell. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa further in view of Oshida US20200047726A1.
Regarding claim 14,
Knitt, Baier, and Saigusa discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above.
Knitt and Baier does not specifically state wherein the controller (20) restricts the speed adjustment assistance operation on the basis of a determination result of a degree of straightness of travel by the lean vehicle (1).
However, Oshida teaches:
wherein the controller (20) restricts the speed adjustment assistance operation on the basis of a determination result of a degree of straightness of travel by the lean vehicle (1). (See at least Para. 0036, “in the control mode, the control section 63 may control the automatic deceleration in accordance with the lean angle of the motorcycle 100. Note that the control of the automatic deceleration includes control to permit or prohibit the automatic cruise deceleration operation”. The speed adjustment assistance is restricted based on the degree of straightness of the lean vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knitt and Baier to incorporate the teachings of Oshida to include the limitations above in order to “appropriately assisting with an operation by a driver while preventing a motorcycle from falling over” (Para. 0001, Oshida), which would increase the safety of the lean vehicle rider and other vehicles on the road. This would create a more robust automatic lean vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Knitt, Baier, and Oshida. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuhner et al. US20230182755A1 discloses systems and methods may provide for the prevention of rear-end vehicle collisions by locking the forward movement of the throttle pedal when a threshold is reached. An end stop or mechanical linkage may completely lock the throttle pedal in situations in which continued acceleration is likely to result in a rear-end collision. (See abstract).
Aizawa et al. US20210316727A1 discloses a motorcycle-drive assistance apparatus that makes rapid deceleration by an engine brake possible so that braking control unintended by a rider can be avoided. The motorcycle-drive assistance apparatus is configured in such a way that a deceleration-start inter-vehicle distance calculation unit calculates a deceleration-start inter-vehicle distance, by use of an acceleration value read from an engine-brake acceleration value storage unit, based on an own-vehicle speed calculated by an own-vehicle speed calculation unit and a road-surface gradient angle calculated by a road-surface gradient angle calculation unit and in such a way that when the inter-vehicle distance between an own vehicle and another vehicle, detected by an object detection unit, becomes smaller than the calculated deceleration-start inter-vehicle distance, deceleration of the own vehicle through the engine brake is started. (See abstract)
Oh US20190351906A1 discloses controlling an inter-vehicle distance may include one or more sensors, configured to detect one or more forward targets in front of a host vehicle, and a controller, configured to control the host vehicle to drive while maintaining a predetermined first inter-vehicle distance from a first target that drives on the driving road of the host vehicle. (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights