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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 7/17/2025. Applicant amended claims 1-9 and 12-14. Claims 1-14 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2023-004804, filed on 1/17/2023.
SPECIFICATION
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Specifically, the abstract has a length of 170 words. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is further requested to review the specification for informalities, including awkward grammatical constructions potentially arising from direct translation. For instance, several below-identified claim informalities — e.g., “no more detected” in lieu of the grammatically correct “no longer detected” in at least paras. [0005], [0006], etc. — are present throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10 and 12-14 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As a preliminary note, Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to review the claims in their entirety for potential clarity enhancements. The claims contain a large number of informalities and awkward grammar constructions, potentially arising from direct translation, which impede a clear understanding of the claimed subject matter and therefore impede compact prosecution of the application.
Claims 1 and 14
“configure to” – should be “configured to”
“the other vehicles (2)” – lacks antecedent basis
“the other vehicle (2)” – lacks antecedent basis; plus, the element being singular is inconsistent with the established “other vehicles (2)” which is plural.
“surrounding environment sensor (14) installed to the own vehicle” – grammatically awkward, should rather read: “installed [[to]] in the own vehicle” (on is also acceptable).
“no more detected” – grammatically incorrected, should be “no [[more]] longer detected”.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7
“no more detected” – grammatically incorrect, should be “no [[more]] longer detected”.
Claim 4
“based on least one deceleration information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b)”
First, the limitation is grammatically incorrect; it should read “based on at least one of”.
Second, the limitation should clarify that the claim is referring to deceleration state information from at least one of two of the claimed sources; as written, it is difficult to parse that this is the intention of the claim. A suggested amendment is provided below.
“the control device controls deceleration … based on at least one deceleration state information … before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed”
Here, it is difficult to parse where (i) deceleration is controlled before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation; or (ii) the deceleration state information comes from a time instance before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation. In the context of the claim and Specification paras. [0061]-[0067], the only reasonable construction is reading (ii).
Examiner suggests the following amendment to resolve the above issues: “based on at least one deceleration state information acquired before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation of at least one of the own vehicle (1) [[and]] or the first other vehicle (2b)”
Claim 8
“based on least one acceleration information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b)”
First, the limitation is grammatically incorrect; it should read “based on at least one of”.
Second, the limitation should clarify that the claim is referring to deceleration state information from at least one of two of the claimed sources; as written, it is difficult to parse that this is the intention of the claim. A suggested amendment is provided below.
“the control device controls acceleration … based on at least one deceleration state information … before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed”
Here, it is difficult to parse where (i) acceleration is controlled before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation; or (ii) the deceleration state information comes from a time instance before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation. In the context of the claim and Specification paras. [0061]-[0067], the only reasonable construction is reading (ii).
Examiner suggests the following amendment to resolve the above issues: “based on at least one deceleration state information acquired before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation of at least one of the own vehicle (1) [[and]] or the first other vehicle (2b)”
Claim 10
“the execution section (22)” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 12
“on the basis of at least one deceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b)” — the claim should rather read “on the basis of at least one of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b)” to clarify that the claim is referring to deceleration state information from at least one of two of the claimed sources; as written, it is difficult to parse that this is the intention of the claim.
Claim 13
“on the basis of at least one acceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b).” — the claim should rather read “on the basis of at least one of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b)” to clarify that the claim is referring to deceleration state information from at least one of two of the claimed sources; as written, it is difficult to parse that this is the intention of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: “the execution section (22) cancels” in claim 10 (with dependent claim 11).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: “microcomputer, a microprocessor unit” — ¶¶ 28-29 and FIG. 2.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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.
As to independent claims 1 and 14, the following limitation — marked up for analysis — is vague and indefinite:
“executes an acceleration increase suppression operation that suppresses an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when a second other vehicle (2a) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) belongs is set as the target vehicle [baseline A] in a case where a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) does not belong is set as the target vehicle [triggering condition] or compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when the speed control is executed without setting the target vehicle [baseline B].”
Here, it is unclear whether the triggering condition (“when a second other vehicle (2a) … is no more detected … in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) does not belong is set as the target vehicle”) applies to both baseline A (“compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when a second other vehicle (2a) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) belongs is set as the target vehicle”) and baseline B (“compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when the speed control is executed without setting the target vehicle”); or, on the other hand, that the triggering condition only applies to baseline A, wherein baseline B is the default baseline applied when the triggering condition is not met. That is, there are two possible readings of the claim:
Reading 1: The trigger attaches back to “suppresses an increase in acceleration”, such that when the trigger fires, acceleration suppression is measured against either baseline A or baseline B.
Reading 2: The trigger is only associated with baseline A, such that baseline B is an alternative to the trigger condition – i.e., suppression occurs either when the trigger fires (measured against A), or whenever speed control runs with no target set (measured against B).
The specification does not cure the issue. Paras. [0048], [0060], [0071] and [0101] repeat identical construction and do not clarify the issue.
For examination purposes, Examiner will follow Reading 1.
In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (US20240001920A1; “Katayama”) in view of Pelosse (US20100179741A1; “Pelosse”).
As to independent claim 1, Katayama discloses:
a control device (20) for controlling a behavior of a straddle type vehicle (1) (FIG. 1 is a view illustrating a configuration of a driving support system 1 according to the present embodiment. The driving support system 1 is mounted on a motorcycle as a saddle type vehicle.” ¶ 57 and FIG. 1.), the control device configured to:
execute a positional relationship adjusting operation that adjusts a positional relationship between an own vehicle (1) and a vehicle set as a target vehicle in the other vehicles (2) constituting a group, including a plurality of straddle type vehicles including the own vehicle (1) and traveling in a plurality of convoys as a group, to be a target positional relationship (Continuing, in the normal tracking mode, “the automatic traveling controller 61 sets a preceding vehicle which is recognized on the basis of forward information … as a tracking target, and automatically controls a distance between the tracking target and the own vehicle along a traveling direction.” ¶ 85. “The first platooning mode is a control mode prepared for performing tracking control on the basis of two preceding vehicles that are close to the own vehicle, that is, two preceding vehicles traveling laterally ahead of and ahead of the own vehicle in a case where the own vehicle joins in platooning as the third or subsequent vehicle from a lead vehicle V1 (in the example of FIG. 2, a third motorcycle V3 from the lead vehicle …) for traveling in a zigzag manner by a group including a plurality of … motorcycles V1, V2, V3, V4, . . . as illustrated in FIG. 2 . Here, in the example in FIG. 2 , in a case where the own vehicle is the third motorcycle V3, and in a case where the control mode is set at the first platooning mode, the automatic traveling controller 61 performs tracking control on the basis of the second motorcycle V2 traveling laterally ahead of the own vehicle and the lead vehicle V1 traveling ahead of the own vehicle.” ¶ 89 and FIG. 2. “[I]n a platoon of saddle type vehicles formed in a zigzag pattern as illustrated in FIG. 2, a preceding vehicle traveling in front of the own vehicle (that is, at a position at which courses overlap) among preceding vehicles traveling ahead of the own vehicle will be referred to as a front preceding vehicle, and a preceding vehicle traveling at a position offset to right or left with respect to the course of the own vehicle along a vehicle width direction will be also referred to as an offset preceding vehicle.” ¶ 90. “Upon cruising traveling as illustrated in FIG. 3A, the automatic traveling controller 61 sets the offset preceding vehicle V2 traveling laterally ahead of the own vehicle among the two preceding vehicles V1 and V2 as the tracking target, and performs tracking control with respect to the tracking target through the same procedure as the procedure in the normal tracking mode, thereby causes the own vehicle to track the tracking target while keeping a distance between the offset preceding vehicle V2 and the own vehicle.” ¶ 92 and FIG. 3A; see also ¶¶ 91 and 93. Note: The group of motorcycles traveling in right/left offset positions meets the BRI of traveling in a plurality of convoys as such matches Applicant’s description of a plurality of convoys in at least paras. [0039]-[0041].),
wherein in the positional relationship adjusting operation,
the control device sets the other vehicle (2) detected by a surrounding environment sensor (14) installed to the own vehicle (1) as the target vehicle (“[I]n the normal tracking mode, “the automatic traveling controller 61 sets a preceding vehicle which is recognized on the basis of forward information … as a tracking target, and automatically controls a distance between the tracking target and the own vehicle along a traveling direction.” ¶ 85; see also ¶¶ 61-62.), and
executes speed control for controlling a speed of the own vehicle (1) to a target speed when the target vehicle is not set (“In a state where the control mode is set at the normal tracking mode, in a case where a preceding vehicle that satisfies the tracking target condition can be recognized on the basis of the forward information as described above, the automatic traveling controller 61 performs tracking control while setting the preceding vehicle as the tracking target, and in a case where a preceding vehicle that satisfies the tracking target condition cannot be recognized on the basis of the forward information, the automatic traveling controller 61 does not set the tracking target and executes automatic vehicle speed control under the setting vehicle speed.” ¶ 113; see also ¶ 86.), wherein
in a case where a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) does not belong is set as the target vehicle, a control is performed (Provided is a “first platooning mode” wherein an own vehicle is motorcycle V3, an offset preceding vehicle V2 travels laterally ahead of the own vehicle, and the front preceding vehicle V1 travels ahead of V2 along the traveling direction and “ at a closer position than the offset preceding vehicle V2 along the vehicle width direction.” ¶ 91 and FIGS. 3A-3B. “Upon cruising traveling as illustrated in FIG. 3A, the automatic traveling controller 61 sets the offset preceding vehicle V2 traveling laterally ahead of the own vehicle among the two preceding vehicles V1 and V2 as the tracking target, and performs tracking control with respect to the tracking target through the same procedure as the procedure in the normal tracking mode, thereby causes the own vehicle to track the tracking target while keeping a distance between the offset preceding vehicle V2 and the own vehicle.” ¶ 92 and FIG. 3A. Provided is a first platooning cancel condition 2d, comprising: “the offset preceding vehicle or the front preceding vehicle cannot be recognized on the basis of the forward information.” ¶ 131. Indeed, an example is provided wherein “the offset preceding vehicle V1 that is set as the tracking target so far goes out of the detection range 22R of the forward radar unit of the own vehicle. In this case, the automatic traveling controller 61 cannot grasp a position of the offset preceding vehicle V1 on the basis of the forward information.” ¶ 98 and FIG. 4B; see also ¶ 200.).
Katayama fails to explicitly disclose: executes an acceleration increase suppression operation that suppresses an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when a second other vehicle (2a) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) belongs is set as the target vehicle in a case where a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) corresponding to the other vehicle (2) located in the convoy to which the own vehicle (1) does not belong is set as the target vehicle or compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when the speed control is executed without setting the target vehicle.
Nevertheless, Pelosse teaches: executes an acceleration increase suppression operation that suppresses an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when the speed control is executed without setting the target vehicle (“In the target lost mode, as is described in greater detail below, the ACC system 11 zeros any acceleration and deceleration and maintains the current velocity.” ¶ 16. “If the ACC system 11 did not include a target lost mode, when the target vehicle 20 is lost (as illustrated in FIGS. 2 b and 3 b), the ACC system 11 would leave the following mode and return to the normal mode, causing the user vehicle 10 to accelerate towards the set cruise speed.” ¶ 19. “The lost target mode provided by the ACC system 11 helps to avoid the acceleration followed by a deceleration induced by a target vehicle that is momentarily lost by the ACC system 11. As will be described in greater detail below, the lost target mode uses a lost target timer to delay acceleration of the user vehicle for a particular amount of time after losing a target vehicle.” ¶ 20. “If the microcontroller 112 determines (in step 206) that a lost target situation has occurred, a lost target timer 113 is set and the user vehicle acceleration and deceleration is zeroed such that the vehicle maintains a constant speed (step 220, see FIG. 5 b).” ¶ 42 and FIG. 5b.)
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 invention of Katayama to include the feature of: executes an acceleration increase suppression operation that suppresses an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) compared to an increase in acceleration of the own vehicle (1) when the speed control is executed without setting the target vehicle, as taught by Pelosse, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing “an uncomfortable driving experience, an increase in fuel consumption, an undesired proximity to the target vehicle 20, and, as a consequence, a reduced usage of the ACC system 11 by a driver” when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor. (Pelosse, ¶ 19.) Katayama also establishes that its stated purpose is to reduce rider burden of preserving a group formation of a zigzag pattern of a platoon of straddle type vehicles. (See Katayama ¶¶ 3, 8.) Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Pelosse’s teaching into Katayama to enhance its preservation of a group formation when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor, and to predictably harness Pelosse’s advantages into Katayama.
Independent claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 10, Katayama fails to explicitly disclose: wherein when a state in which the first other vehicle (2b) is not detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) continues for more than a reference time in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the execution section (22) cancels the acceleration increase suppression operation.
Nevertheless, Pelosse teaches: wherein when a state in which the first other vehicle (2b) is not detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) continues for more than a reference time in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the execution section (22) cancels the acceleration increase suppression operation (“The timer module 114 receives a lost target indication from the microcontroller 112 and includes lost target timer 113. The lost target timer 113 starts counting upon receiving a lost target indication from microcontroller 112. In some embodiments, for instance, the lost target timer 113 counts up until a delay time has elapsed.” ¶ 29. “If the microcontroller 112 determines (in step 206) that a lost target situation has occurred, a lost target timer 113 is set and the user vehicle acceleration and deceleration is zeroed such that the vehicle maintains a constant speed (step 220, see FIG. 5 b). Immediately thereafter, the lost target timer 113 begins to count and the user vehicle speed is maintained at a constant speed until a delay time elapses (step 222), …. If the microcontroller 112 determines that the delay time has elapsed in step 222, the microcontroller proceeds to step 204 and acceleration and deceleration is no longer zeroed (i.e., the current velocity of the user vehicle is adjusted by the ACC unit 11 as determined in the normal mode).” ¶ 42 and FIG. 5A.).
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 invention of Katayama to include the feature of: wherein when a state in which the first other vehicle (2b) is not detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) continues for more than a reference time in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the execution section (22) cancels the acceleration increase suppression operation, as taught by Pelosse, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing “an uncomfortable driving experience, an increase in fuel consumption, an undesired proximity to the target vehicle 20, and, as a consequence, a reduced usage of the ACC system 11 by a driver” when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor. (Pelosse, ¶ 19.) Katayama also establishes that its stated purpose is to reduce rider burden of preserving a group formation of a zigzag pattern of a platoon of straddle type vehicles. (See Katayama ¶¶ 3, 8.) Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Pelosse’s teaching into Katayama to enhance its preservation of a group formation when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor, and to predictably harness Pelosse’s advantages into Katayama.
As to claim 11, Katayama fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the reference time is a fixed value.
Nevertheless, Pelosse teaches: wherein the reference time is a fixed value (“The timer module 114 receives a lost target indication from the microcontroller 112 and includes lost target timer 113. The lost target timer 113 starts counting upon receiving a lost target indication from microcontroller 112. In some embodiments, for instance, the lost target timer 113 counts up until a delay time has elapsed.” ¶ 29.).
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 invention of Katayama to include the feature of: wherein the reference time is a fixed value, as taught by Pelosse, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing “an uncomfortable driving experience, an increase in fuel consumption, an undesired proximity to the target vehicle 20, and, as a consequence, a reduced usage of the ACC system 11 by a driver” when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor. (Pelosse, ¶ 19.) Katayama also establishes that its stated purpose is to reduce rider burden of preserving a group formation of a zigzag pattern of a platoon of straddle type vehicles. (See Katayama ¶¶ 3, 8.) Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Pelosse’s teaching into Katayama to enhance its preservation of a group formation when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor, and to predictably harness Pelosse’s advantages into Katayama.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama in view of Pelosse as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Vivet et al. (US20230294691A1; “Vivet”)
As to claim 2, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control device continues to decelerate the own vehicle (1) in the acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein a control device continues to decelerate an own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating (“[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained. For example, if the first target vehicle was decelerating before the loss of detection, the ego-vehicle speed regulation will continue to decelerate the ego-vehicle.” ¶ 14.).
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein a control device continues to decelerate an own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 3, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control device continues or starts to decelerate the own vehicle (1) in the acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein a control device continues to decelerate an own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating (“[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained. For example, if the first target vehicle was decelerating before the loss of detection, the ego-vehicle speed regulation will continue to decelerate the ego-vehicle.” ¶ 14.)
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein a control device continues to decelerate an own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 4, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the control device controls deceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one deceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein in an acceleration increase suppression operation, a control device controls deceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one deceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed (“The ego-vehicle may comprise means (radar, camera, etc.) configured to detect vehicles preceding it (outpacing it). A detected vehicle is also called a target vehicle. These means are also capable of determining movement information of the target vehicle. For example, movement information comprises …an absolute or relative acceleration with respect to the ego-vehicle …. Acceleration is positive or negative, therefore including decelerations.” ¶ 4. “[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained. For example, if the first target vehicle was decelerating before the loss of detection, the ego-vehicle speed regulation will continue to decelerate the ego-vehicle.” ¶ 14. Note: Acceleration (including deceleration) is acquired before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation as the acquired deceleration is required to perform the acceleration increase suppression operation.).
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein in an acceleration increase suppression operation, a control device controls deceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one deceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 6, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control device continues to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in the acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is accelerating.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein a control device continues to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is accelerating (“The ego-vehicle may comprise means (radar, camera, etc.) configured to detect vehicles preceding it (outpacing it). A detected vehicle is also called a target vehicle. These means are also capable of determining movement information of the target vehicle. For example, movement information comprises …an absolute or relative acceleration with respect to the ego-vehicle …. Acceleration is positive or negative, therefore including decelerations.” ¶ 4. “[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained.).
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein a control device continues to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is accelerating, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 7, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control device continues or starts to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in the acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the first other vehicle (2b) is accelerating.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein a control device continues to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is accelerating (“The ego-vehicle may comprise means (radar, camera, etc.) configured to detect vehicles preceding it (outpacing it). A detected vehicle is also called a target vehicle. These means are also capable of determining movement information of the target vehicle. For example, movement information comprises …an absolute or relative acceleration with respect to the ego-vehicle …. Acceleration is positive or negative, therefore including decelerations.” ¶ 4. “[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained.).
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein a control device continues to accelerate the own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when the first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is accelerating, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 8, the combination of Katayama and Pelosse fails to explicitly disclose: wherein in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the control device controls acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one acceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed.
Nevertheless, Vivet teaches: wherein in an acceleration increase suppression operation, the control device controls acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one acceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed (“The ego-vehicle may comprise means (radar, camera, etc.) configured to detect vehicles preceding it (outpacing it). A detected vehicle is also called a target vehicle. These means are also capable of determining movement information of the target vehicle. For example, movement information comprises …an absolute or relative acceleration with respect to the ego-vehicle …. Acceleration is positive or negative, therefore including decelerations.” ¶ 4. “[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained. Note: Acceleration (including deceleration) is acquired before executing the acceleration increase suppression operation as the acquired deceleration is required to perform the acceleration increase suppression operation.).
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 combination of Katayama and Pelosse to include the feature of: wherein in an acceleration increase suppression operation, the control device controls acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) based on least one acceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b) before the acceleration increase suppression operation starts to be executed, as taught by Vivet, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for remedying “known problems during loss of detection of the target vehicle, thus improving the safety and comfort of the users of the ego-vehicle.” (Vivet, ¶ 8.) Specifically, Vivet identifies the problem that if “the target vehicle, whose detection is lost, is in the deceleration phase, it will find itself very close to the ego-vehicle when the target vehicle is detected again.” (Vivet, ¶ 7.) Vivet highlights the benefit of its solution, stating, “When the first target vehicle is detected again, the distance, or time to impact, will be much greater than if the speed regulation keeps the speed of the ego-vehicle constant during the loss of detection of the first target vehicle. This significantly improves safety.” (Vivet, ¶ 14) Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt Vivet’s refinement into the combination of Katayama and Pelosse to predictably yield Vivet’s safety and comfort benefits.
As to claim 9, Katayama fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the control device decreases acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) over time in the acceleration increase suppression operation.
Pelosse teaches: wherein the control device decreases acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) over time in the acceleration increase suppression operation (“In the target lost mode, as is described in greater detail below, the ACC system 11 zeros any acceleration and deceleration and maintains the current velocity.” ¶ 16. Note: Zeroing acceleration matches the BRI of decreasing acceleration as acceleration is brought from a positive value to zero.).
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 invention of Katayama to include the feature of: wherein the control device decreases acceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) over time in the acceleration increase suppression operation, as taught by Pelosse, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for preventing “an uncomfortable driving experience, an increase in fuel consumption, an undesired proximity to the target vehicle 20, and, as a consequence, a reduced usage of the ACC system 11 by a driver” when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor. (Pelosse, ¶ 19.) Katayama also establishes that its stated purpose is to reduce rider burden of preserving a group formation of a zigzag pattern of a platoon of straddle type vehicles. (See Katayama ¶¶ 3, 8.) Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Pelosse’s teaching into Katayama to enhance its preservation of a group formation when a target vehicle is no longer detected by an own vehicle’s sensor, and to predictably harness Pelosse’s advantages into Katayama.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5, 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims; and (ii) the § 112(b) issues are resolved.
As to claim 5, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests “wherein the control device increases deceleration generated in the own vehicle (1) over time in the acceleration increase suppression operation.” Notably, claim 5 is dependent on claim 2, which sets forth, inter alia, that “the control device continues to decelerate the own vehicle (1) in the acceleration increase suppression operation.” Hence, the distinguishing feature of the claim is the control sequence of first continuing to decelerate an own vehicle in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle, set as a target vehicle, which was decelerating is no longer detected; then increasing deceleration over time while performing the acceleration increase suppression operation. At best, Pelosse discloses that deceleration may be increased when performing the acceleration increase suppression operation (“In the target lost mode, as is described in greater detail below, the ACC system 11 zeros any acceleration and deceleration and maintains the current velocity.” ¶ 16.) However, the critical distinguishment is that Pelosse decelerates positive acceleration to zero, whereas if the vehicle is decelerating, Pelosse accelerates the negative acceleration to zero — such is the opposite of what the claim does, which increases the magnitude of present negative acceleration to a greater value away from zero. Continuing, Vivet teaches: wherein a control device continues to decelerate an own vehicle (1) in an acceleration increase suppression operation when a first other vehicle (2b) is no more detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) in a situation in which the first other vehicle (2b) is set as the target vehicle during execution of the positional relationship adjusting operation and the own vehicle (1) is decelerating (“[A] movement (position, speed, acceleration) of the ego-vehicle compatible with the movement of the first target vehicle before the loss of detection is maintained. For example, if the first target vehicle was decelerating before the loss of detection, the ego-vehicle speed regulation will continue to decelerate the ego-vehicle.” ¶ 14.). Nevertheless, Vivet does not increase deceleration during the acceleration increase suppression operation. Therefore, the prior art does not read on claim 5.
As to claim 12, none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests “wherein when a state in which the first other vehicle (2b) is not detected by the surrounding environment sensor (14) continues for more than a reference time in the acceleration increase suppression operation, the control device cancels the acceleration increase suppression operation and changes the reference time on the basis of at least one deceleration state information of the own vehicle (1) and the first other vehicle (2b).” To begin, Pelosse discloses that “the ACC system 11 automatically selects a delay time for a lost target timer 113 that is variable,” wherein the delay time is variable based on parameters such as a time gap between the user vehicle and the target vehicle, the desired time gap, and the relative velocity between the user vehicle and the target vehicle. However, Pelosse neither varies its lost target timer upon the condition that a first other vehicle is not detected for more than a reference time, nor changes the reference time on the basis of deceleration state information of the own vehicle or the first other vehicle. Now, Deschinger (DE102005032182A1; “Deschinger”) is made of record. Deschinger discloses: in a state in which the a target vehicle is not detected by the surrounding environment sensor, changing reference time on the basis of at least acceleration state information of the own vehicle (“Since the vehicle to be controlled (vehicle 1) has entered the curve at this time, there is a lateral acceleration, due to which the lost target timer, as it has not yet expired at this time, is dynamically set to a higher value …. If the lateral acceleration level drops again due to exiting the curve or completing the curve without relocating the target vehicle 2, the Lost Target timer is quickly terminated by a dynamic reduction of the abort time, thus ending the Lost Target function.” ¶ 20. “[T]he lost-target timer, which is started upon detection of the situation, has a timer duration dependent on lateral acceleration, i.e., the effective time of the function limiting acceleration upon target loss, which depends on the magnitude of the ACC-internal lateral acceleration signal (a_quer).” ¶ 22.) Nevertheless, Deschinger is insufficient to arrive at the claim as it does not change its reference time upon the condition that a first other vehicle is not detected for more than a reference time, and Deschinger changes the timer based on lateral acceleration, whereas the context of the claimed invention is directed towards longitudinal acceleration. Therefore, the prior art does not read on claim 12.
As to claim 13, the claim follows similar analysis as claim 12, with the only difference being the change of reference time on the basis of acceleration state information. Neither Pelosse, Deschinger nor the rest of the prior art read on claim 13.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights