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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The effective filing date is recognized as September 12, 2024, in continuity with JP 2024-158020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1:
Claim 1 describes “A vehicle control device” and thus falls under the statutory category of an apparatus.
Step 2(a), Prong I:
A vehicle control device configured to issue, in a case where a collision warning condition in which a collision risk of a vehicle colliding with an object is equal to or greater than a warning threshold is established, a collision warning for reducing the collision risk
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to relax the collision warning condition more in a case where another warning different from the collision warning is being issued, than in a case where the other warning is not being issued.
The Examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The determinations and analysis made upon data can simply be performed mentally.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite additional elements (underlined below):
A vehicle control device configured to issue, in a case where a collision warning condition in which a collision risk of a vehicle colliding with an object is equal to or greater than a warning threshold is established, a collision warning for reducing the collision risk
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to relax the collision warning condition more in a case where another warning different from the collision warning is being issued, than in a case where the other warning is not being issued.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea, underlined above, are, sending and creating a warning, and relaxing a warning condition based on the presence of another warning. Regarding the additional limitations, the Examiner submits that these limitations constitutes mere data outputting and the mere application of computer technology. This falls under the principle of insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), and “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, what is left over is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim is thus ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-5
The claims that depend on Claim 1 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-5 when analyzed individually and in combination, are held to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims establishes that the vehicle control deice performs automatic steering and braking control, which constitutes a practical application. However, the dependent claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as the depend from claims which are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected as being obvious over Deng (US 20180204460 A1), in view of Julian (US 20210394775 A1), further in view of Nagata (US 20190092320 A1), herein after referred to simply as Deng, Julian, and Nagata, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
Deng discloses the following limitations,
A vehicle control device configured to issue, in a case where a collision warning condition in which a collision risk of a vehicle colliding with an object is equal to or greater than a warning threshold is established, a collision warning for reducing the collision risk, (Paragraph [0050], “In another example, if the threat number is above 0.4 but less than or equal to 0.7, the computing device 105 can actuate the brake 120 to, e.g., a deceleration of −2.0 m/s2. In another example, if the threat number is greater than 0.2 but less than or equal to 0.4, the computing device 105 can display a visual warning on a vehicle 101 HMI and/or play an audio warning over a speaker.” The computing device 105 is a vehicle control device.)
However, Deng does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to relax the collision warning condition
However, this is taught by Julian, in the same field of endeavor, which teaches that a collision warning can be relaxed, i.e., the period can be extended for an earlier warning, if a driver is not paying attention (Paragraph [0129], “. In one embodiment it may be determined if the driver is currently looking forward or not, and based on that determination adjust the threshold time to collision before sounding the alert. For example, if the driver is looking in a direction other than forward, then if the time to collision is 2.1 sec a FCW is sounded. If the driver is looking forward likely seeing the vehicle, then the alert threshold may be 1.6 seconds. This affords the driver more time to respond when already observing what is happening and reduces the number of “crying wolf” alerts that are just alerting the driver to what they are already observing.”). The system determines gaze based on a threshold of time, using a camera (Paragraph [0007], “The method further includes capturing, by the at least one processor with a driver facing camera,” and Paragraph [0066], “The system may also detect pose and gaze to determine the posture of a driver and/or where the driver is looking. The pose and gaze information may also be accumulated to determine if a driver is distracted by something for longer than a threshold amount of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the collision avoidance of Deng with the condition relaxation of Julian, as this prevents a nuisance to the driver. (Paragraph [0129], “This affords the driver more time to respond when already observing what is happening and reduces the number of “crying wolf” alerts that are just alerting the driver to what they are already observing.”). Further, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Deng and Julian does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to relax the collision warning condition more in a case where another warning different from the collision warning is being issued, than in a case where the other warning is not being issued.
However, this is taught by Nagata which teaches that a warning may be made more sensitive based on an operation of another warning (Paragraph [0008], “An aspect of the disclosure provides a vehicle control device including at least one electronic control unit configured to recognize at least one object in front of a host vehicle using a sensor, calculate a time to collision of the at least one object with respect to the host vehicle, operate first driving assistance for avoiding danger of a collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a first threshold value, operate second driving assistance for avoiding the collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle or reducing damage of the collision, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value, and set, while the first driving assistance is operated, the second threshold value to a second setting value smaller than a first setting value, the first setting value being set when the first driving assistance is not operated, when a second target object causing the second driving assistance to operate is the same object as a first target object causing the first driving assistance to operate, the first target object and the second target object being among the at least one object.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to have modified the vehicle warning of Deng, as previously modified by Julian, with the warning increase, i.e., increasing collision warning condition relaxation in a case where a different warning is being issued, as this improves a driver comfort (Paragraph [0007], “The disclosure provides a vehicle control device capable of reducing troublesome feeling of a driver by operating two types of driving assistance having different operation timings without deteriorating a sense of security provided to the driver.”)
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Deng, Julian and Nagata, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Deng further discloses the following limitations,
The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control device is configured to execute, in a case where a control condition in which the collision risk is equal to or greater than a control threshold that is greater than the warning threshold is established, vehicle control including at least one of automatic braking control for automatically braking the vehicle to reduce the collision risk and automatic steering control for automatically steering the vehicle to reduce the collision risk, (Paragraph [0050], “In another example, if the threat number is above 0.4 but less than or equal to 0.7, the computing device 105 can actuate the brake 120 to, e.g., a deceleration of −2.0 m/s2. In another example, if the threat number is greater than 0.2 but less than or equal to 0.4, the computing device 105 can display a visual warning on a vehicle 101 HMI and/or play an audio warning over.” The vehicle may trigger to a higher alarm, which establishes a control condition, such as braking. Furthermore, a steering is also evaluated for a steering control, Paragraph [0047], “The computing device 105 can determine a steering threat number STN. The STN is a measure of a change in lateral acceleration to allow one of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 to clear a crossing zone and/or to steer the host vehicle 101 around a front end or a rear end of the target 200.”)
Julian further already teaches the following limitation,
and relax, in a case where the other warning is being issued while the collision warning condition is established, the control condition … when a driving operation status that represents a status of a driving operation of a driver of the vehicle after the collision warning and an attention status that represents a status of an attention of the driver to the object after the collision warning satisfy a relaxation condition that is predetermined (Paragraph [0129], “. In one embodiment it may be determined if the driver is currently looking forward or not, and based on that determination adjust the threshold time to collision before sounding the alert. For example, if the driver is looking in a direction other than forward, then if the time to collision is 2.1 sec a FCW is sounded. If the driver is looking forward likely seeing the vehicle, then the alert threshold may be 1.6 seconds. This affords the driver more time to respond when already observing what is happening and reduces the number of “crying wolf” alerts that are just alerting the driver to what they are already observing.” A relaxation of the control condition is based on the status of the driver attention.)
Nagata further already teaches the following limitations,
and relax, in a case where the other warning is being issued while the collision warning condition is established, the control condition more … , than in a case where the other warning is not being issued. (Paragraph [0008], “An aspect of the disclosure provides a vehicle control device including at least one electronic control unit configured to recognize at least one object in front of a host vehicle using a sensor, calculate a time to collision of the at least one object with respect to the host vehicle, operate first driving assistance for avoiding danger of a collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a first threshold value, operate second driving assistance for avoiding the collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle or reducing damage of the collision, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value, and set, while the first driving assistance is operated, the second threshold value to a second setting value smaller than a first setting value, the first setting value being set when the first driving assistance is not operated, when a second target object causing the second driving assistance to operate is the same object as a first target object causing the first driving assistance to operate, the first target object and the second target object being among the at least one object.”)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Deng, Julian, and Nagata, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Julian further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to, in a case where the other warning is being issued while the collision warning condition is established, determine that the relaxation condition is established when a collision between the vehicle and the object is not avoided by the driving operation and the driver does not pay attention to the object, (Paragraph [0129], “In one embodiment it may be determined if the driver is currently looking forward or not, and based on that determination adjust the threshold time to collision before sounding the alert. For example, if the driver is looking in a direction other than forward, then if the time to collision is 2.1 sec a FCW is sounded. If the driver is looking forward likely seeing the vehicle, then the alert threshold may be 1.6 seconds. This affords the driver more time to respond when already observing what is happening and reduces the number of “crying wolf” alerts that are just alerting the driver to what they are already observing.” The relaxation condition, an extension of the TTC for an earlier trigger timing, is enacted if the vehicle does not avoid the obstacle and does not pay attention.)
Nagata further already teaches the following limitations,
in a case where the other warning is being issued … relax the control condition more than in a case where the other warning is not being issued. (Paragraph [0008], “An aspect of the disclosure provides a vehicle control device including at least one electronic control unit configured to recognize at least one object in front of a host vehicle using a sensor, calculate a time to collision of the at least one object with respect to the host vehicle, operate first driving assistance for avoiding danger of a collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a first threshold value, operate second driving assistance for avoiding the collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle or reducing damage of the collision, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value, and set, while the first driving assistance is operated, the second threshold value to a second setting value smaller than a first setting value, the first setting value being set when the first driving assistance is not operated, when a second target object causing the second driving assistance to operate is the same object as a first target object causing the first driving assistance to operate, the first target object and the second target object being among the at least one object.”)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Deng, Julian, and Nagata, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 2. Deng further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to, … while the collision warning condition is established, not execute the vehicle control is avoided by the driving operation. (Paragraph [0049-0050], “The computing device 105 can determine a threat number TN. … The computing device 105 can actuate one or more vehicle components 120 based on the threat number. “ If the obstacle is avoided,
Nagata further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to, in a case where the other warning is being issued while the collision warning condition is established, not execute the vehicle control when the collision is avoided by the driving operation, (Paragraph [0008], “An aspect of the disclosure provides a vehicle control device including at least one electronic control unit configured to recognize at least one object in front of a host vehicle using a sensor, calculate a time to collision of the at least one object with respect to the host vehicle, operate first driving assistance for avoiding danger of a collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a first threshold value, operate second driving assistance for avoiding the collision between the at least one object and the host vehicle or reducing damage of the collision, when the time to collision is equal to or less than a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value, and set, while the first driving assistance is operated, the second threshold value to a second setting value smaller than a first setting value, the first setting value being set when the first driving assistance is not operated, when a second target object causing the second driving assistance to operate is the same object as a first target object causing the first driving assistance to operate, the first target object and the second target object being among the at least one object.”)
Julian further already teaches the following limitations
and not relax the control condition when the collision is not avoided by the driving operation and the driver is paying attention to the object. (Paragraph [0129], “In one embodiment it may be determined if the driver is currently looking forward or not, and based on that determination adjust the threshold time to collision before sounding the alert. For example, if the driver is looking in a direction other than forward, then if the time to collision is 2.1 sec a FCW is sounded. If the driver is looking forward likely seeing the vehicle, then the alert threshold may be 1.6 seconds. This affords the driver more time to respond when already observing what is happening and reduces the number of “crying wolf” alerts that are just alerting the driver to what they are already observing.” A control relaxation is not performed when a driver is attentive.)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Deng, Nagata, and Julian, as shown, teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Deng further discloses the following limitations,
and the vehicle control device is configured to determine that the collision is avoided by the driving operation in a case where an avoidance space is present on a side of the object and a lateral movement amount by which the vehicle moves in a lateral direction until the vehicle collides with the object is greater than a lateral distance between the vehicle and the avoidance space, (Paragraph [0047], “The computing device 105 can determine a steering threat number STN. The STN is a measure of a change in lateral acceleration to allow one of the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 to clear a crossing zone and/or to steer the host vehicle 101 around a front end or a rear end of the target 200.” And further, Paragraph [0035], “The lateral TTC (TTClat) is defined as the time period T when the host vehicle 101 and the target 200 reach the same lateral position, i.e. the relative lateral distance {tilde over (x)}t between target and host is equal to zero.” An avoidance space is also determined, Paragraph [0040], “The distance threshold can be used to determine if the predicted relative lateral and longitudinal distances {tilde over (x)}t, {tilde over (y)}t can trigger a potential collision between the host vehicle 101 and the target 200.”)
or in a case where a deceleration corresponding to an operation amount of a deceleration actuator of the driver at a current point in time is greater than a deceleration at which the collision is avoidable, (Paragraph [0045], “The braking threat number BTN is a measure of a change in an acceleration of the host vehicle 101 to allow one of the host vehicle 101 to stop or the target 200 to pass the host vehicle 101.” The vehicle may be brought to a stop before collision.)
Julian further already teaches the following limitations,
wherein: the vehicle control device includes a driver camera configured to acquire image data of a face of the driver of the vehicle; (Paragraph [0007], “The method further includes capturing, by the at least one processor with a driver facing camera,”)
and determine that the driver is paying attention to the object in a case where a time for which a line of sight of the driver is directed toward the object is equal to or longer than a predetermined time, based on the image data. (Paragraph [0066], “The system may also detect pose and gaze to determine the posture of a driver and/or where the driver is looking. The pose and gaze information may also be accumulated to determine if a driver is distracted by something for longer than a threshold amount of time” By setting a maximum time to look away, a minimum time of looking forward is also established.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights