DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 of application 19/213,020, filed on 20-May-2025, are presented for examination. The IDSs received on 20-August-2025, 16-October-2025 and 21-May-2026 have been considered. The present application is a CON of application 17/851,509, filed on 28-June-2022, now USP 12,319,292.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting Rejections
2.1 The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.32(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
2.2 Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 16 of USP 12,319,292. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present invention and the ‘292 patent are directed to a control method for an intelligent vehicle. Furthermore, the features of claims 1, 11 and 20 of the present invention are primarily directed to the corresponding features in claims 1, 8 and 16 of the ‘292 patent. See the following comparison:
Claim 1: A control method [‘292:claim 1 (An intelligent vehicle control method)], wherein the control method comprises:
obtaining a driving style model and a target speed of a vehicle at a current moment [‘292:1 (obtaining, by a vehicle control system…a driving style model, and a target speed of an intelligent vehicle at a current moment)];
determining a speed control instruction based on the driving style model by applying at least the target speed as an input of the driving style model [‘292:1 (determining, by the vehicle control system, a speed control instruction based on…the driving style model, and the target speed)]; and
controlling the vehicle based on the speed control instruction [‘292:1 (sending, by the vehicle control system, the speed control instruction to a vehicle execution system of the intelligent vehicle.)].
2.3 For at least these reasons, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious that the
features in claims 1, 11 and 20 of the present invention, and claims 1, 8 and 16 of the ‘292 patent, which were present before the effective filing date of the present invention, are not patentably distinct in so far as the present invention is an obvious variation of the ‘292 patent, and the specifications of both the present invention and the ‘292 patent support the identical critical features noted above.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
3.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3.2 Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatano et al, USP Publication 2017/0329330.
3.3 Hatano discloses:
Claims 1, 11 and 20: A control method [¶0005], wherein the control method comprises:
obtaining a driving style model [0104 (the driving characteristics derivation section 155 models the characteristics of operation on each of these operation systems by substituting a function, representative values, or the like into the model for each occupant. The driving characteristics subject to modeling include, for example, at least some characteristics out of
characteristics related to the speed…)] and a target speed of a vehicle [0099 (the course candidate generation section 146B needs to apply a target speed to each course point K since the
course points K include a speed component. The target speed is determined in accordance with the travel mode determined by the travel mode determination section 146A.)] at a current moment [0100-0101 (a determination method for the target speed for performing a lane change (including at junctions).)];
determining a speed control instruction based on the driving style model by applying at least the target speed as an input of the driving style model [0006 (The automated driving controller is configured to execute one driving mode from out of plural driving modes including an automated driving mode in which at least one of speed control or steering control of a vehicle is performed automatically); 0009 (the driving characteristics derivation section derives the driving characteristics for each of a first speed region and a second speed region having a higher speed than the first speed region and having a speed limit which is the speed limit set in the first route or lower); 0014; 0015]; and
controlling the vehicle based on the speed control instruction [0006 (The automated driving controller executes the automated driving mode in which the driving characteristics for each occupant of the vehicle derived by the driving characteristics derivation section are reflected.); 0009 (the automated driving controller executes the automated driving mode in which the driving characteristics estimated by the driving characteristics derivation section are reflected.); 0014; 0015 ()].
Claims 2 and 12: wherein the vehicle comprises a driving style model library, the driving style model library comprises a plurality of driving style models for a driver to select, and each driving style model indicates a different driving habit [0077 (the vehicle information collection section 105 collects (acquires) various operation amounts, such as the depression amount of the accelerator pedal 71 detected by the accelerator opening sensor 72, the depression amount of the brake pedal 74 detected by the brake depression amount sensor 75, and the operation angle of the steering wheel 78 detected by the steering angle sensor 79, from the corresponding sensors at specific periods…The vehicle information collection section 105 then associates, with the information collected from the various sensors, an image of the occupant seated in the driver seat 88…The associated items of information are stored in the storage section 180 as the operation history
information 182.)].
Claims 3 and 13: obtaining a customized driving style model based on at least driving data of a driver by using a machine learning algorithm, wherein the customized driving style model matches a driving habit of the driver [0104 (Generally, there are differences between individuals with regard to depression of the accelerator pedal 71 and the brake pedal 74, or operation the steering wheel 78 due to the habits and the like of the individual. Accordingly, the driving characteristics derivation section 155 models the characteristics of operation on each of these operation systems by substituting a function, representative values, or the like into the model for each occupant.)]; and
adding the customized driving style model to a driving style model library of the vehicle [0077 (The associated items of information are stored in the storage section 180 as the operation history information 182.)].
Claims 4 and 14: obtaining a customized driving style model based on at least driving data of a driver by using a machine learning algorithm, wherein the customized driving style model matches a driving habit of the driver [0104]; and
adding the customized driving style model to a second driving style model library of a second vehicle of the driver other than the vehicle through a cloud data center [0078 (the operation history information 182 associates an image (person identification image) captured by the in-cabin camera 92 and driving operation history indicating information collected from the various sensors, with the identification information (occupant ID) for identifying a freely determined occupant. The image captured by the in-cabin camera 92 is employed to switch the information reading for each occupant in the processing described later.)].
Claims 5 and 15: determining that a driver adjusts a driving mode of the vehicle through at least one of steering wheel rotation, braking [0104], or a human-computer interaction interface; and
collecting driving data of a driver of the vehicle [0077].
Claims 6 and 16: calculating, based on the target speed [0099] and an actual speed [0077 (the vehicle information collection section 105 collects (acquires) various operation amounts, such as the depression amount of the accelerator pedal 71 detected by the accelerator opening sensor 72)], an acceleration at which the vehicle reaches the target speed [0104 (The driving characteristics subject to modeling include, for example, at least some characteristics out of
characteristics related to the speed, forward acceleration, lateral acceleration…); 0105-0108 (FIG. 14 is a diagram for explaining a method of deriving the driving characteristics. In the figure, for
example, the driving characteristics derivation section 155 applies, for example, a method of clustering the speed into a low speed region (range) from the threshold value Vth1 to Vth2, a medium speed region (range) from Vth2 to Vth3, and a high speed region (range) of Vth3 and above, and points indicating forward acceleration are categorized into groups.)];
and obtaining the speed control instruction by using the acceleration and the target
speed as an input of the driving style model [0006 (The automated driving controller is configured to execute one driving mode from out of plural driving modes including an automated driving mode in which at least one of speed control or steering control of a vehicle is performed automatically); 0009 (the driving characteristics derivation section derives the driving characteristics for each of a first speed region and a second speed region having a higher speed than the first speed region and having a speed limit which is the speed limit set in the first route or lower); 0014; 0015].
Claim 10: wherein the speed control instruction comprises an accelerator opening degree and a brake value, the accelerator opening degree is a parameter used to control a vehicle acceleration of the vehicle, and the brake value is a parameter used to control vehicle braking of the vehicle [0104 (Generally, there are differences between individuals with regard to depression of the accelerator pedal 71 and the brake pedal 74, or operation the steering wheel 78 due to the habits and the like of the individual. Accordingly, the driving characteristics derivation section 155 models the characteristics of operation on each of these operation systems by substituting a function, representative values, or the like into the model for each occupant. The driving characteristics subject to modeling include, for example, at least some characteristics out of
characteristics related to the speed, forward acceleration, lateral acceleration, jerk, yaw rate, or steering angle of the vehicle M.)].
Claim Objections
4. In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections noted above, claims 7-9 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Prior Art
5. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-C on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Documents B-C define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
6. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
7.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
7.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661
Prosecution Insights