DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2024-161062 filed 09/18/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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- 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto (USPGPub 2022/0118981) in view of Ito (USPGPub 2022/0169248). As per claim 1, Nishimoto discloses a drive assist device configured to execute deceleration control for decelerating a vehicle with respect to a deceleration target existing ahead of the vehicle (see at least Figures 1A-4), wherein the drive assist device is configured to: start the deceleration control when a driver performs a predetermined deceleration intention operation on an accelerator pedal of the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein perform deceleration assistance control when a driver of a vehicle is not depressing an accelerator pedal, the deceleration assistance control being control for automatically decelerating the vehicle); end the deceleration control when the driver performs a predetermined acceleration intention operation on the accelerator pedal (see at least paragraph 0015; wherein cancel the deceleration assistance control when the operation of the accelerator pedal is detected during the deceleration assistance control. The processor is configured to reduce a deceleration control amount for the deceleration assistance control according to a degree of the operation of the accelerator pedal, when cancelling the deceleration assistance control). Nishimoto does not explicitly mention suppress the deceleration control when a downward slope condition that the vehicle is traveling on a downward slope is satisfied, compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied. However Ito does disclose: suppress the deceleration control when a downward slope condition that the vehicle is traveling on a downward slope is satisfied, compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein control section 4 decreases width H of the hysteresis when detecting a downward slope of a road surface based on the positioning signal inputted from positioning signal receiving section 12 and on the map information stored in memory 5, as compared with the case of detecting no downward slope. This makes it possible to suppress the generation of an unnecessary deceleration force). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ito with the teachings as in Nishimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an improved driving sensation, see Ito abstract. As per claim 2, the modified Nishimoto discloses wherein the drive assist device is configured to: decelerate the vehicle at an operation deceleration determined based on a speed of the vehicle and an operation amount of the accelerator pedal in the deceleration control (see at least paragraphs 0040-0041; wherein Nishimoto discloses the driver assistance device 100 performs the deceleration assistance control when the driver of the vehicle 1 is depressing neither the accelerator pedal nor the brake pedal and the distance d2 between the vehicle 1 and a desired stop position (in this case, a position that is a predetermined following distance away from the rear end of the vehicle 53) is equal to or greater than a predetermined distance. The “predetermined distance” is a value that determines whether to perform the deceleration assistance control. The predetermined distance is typically a variable value according to the speed of the vehicle 1); and suppress the deceleration control by reducing the operation deceleration when the downward slope condition is satisfied, compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein Ito discloses control section 4 decreases width H of the hysteresis when detecting a downward slope of a road surface based on the positioning signal inputted from positioning signal receiving section 12 and on the map information stored in memory 5, as compared with the case of detecting no downward slope. This makes it possible to suppress the generation of an unnecessary deceleration force).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto (USPGPub 2022/0118981), in view of Ito (USPGPub 2022/0169248), and further in view of Erdine et al. (USPGPub 2025/0360804). As per claim 3, Nishimoto and Ito do not explicitly mention wherein the drive assist device is configured to suppress the deceleration control when the downward slope condition is satisfied by executing at least one of: a first upper limit value suppressing process of reducing an upper limit value of deceleration in the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied; and a second upper limit value suppressing process of reducing an upper limit value of a time change of the deceleration in the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied. However Erdine does disclose: wherein the drive assist device is configured to suppress the deceleration control when the downward slope condition is satisfied by executing at least one of: a first upper limit value suppressing process of reducing an upper limit value of deceleration in the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied; and a second upper limit value suppressing process of reducing an upper limit value of a time change of the deceleration in the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied (see at least paragraph 0090; wherein the upper and/or lower limit is determined based on a stretch braking operation for the vehicle combination 100 Stretch braking is applied to avoid yaw instabilities, for example, during downhill motion of the vehicle combination 100 where increased coupling force between a trailing unit and a tractor unit may lead to jack-knifing). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Ito with the teachings as in Nishimoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve stability or efficiency of the vehicle, see Erdine paragraph 0088.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the drive assist device is configured to suppress the deceleration control when the downward slope condition is satisfied by executing at least one of: a start timing process of delaying a start timing of the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied, and an end timing process of advancing an end timing of the deceleration control compared to when the downward slope condition is not satisfied.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2010/0198474 – Provide a deceleration control apparatus for a vehicle including a controller that performs deceleration control based on a first target deceleration set based on a distance to a starting point of an upcoming curve, when the deceleration control for the curve is started at a position distant from the starting point of the curve; and that performs the deceleration control based on a second target deceleration set based on a lateral acceleration that is estimated to be detected when the vehicle passes the starting point of the curve, when the deceleration control for the curve is started at a position close to the starting point of the curve. With this apparatus, it is possible to perform the deceleration control that provides drive assist according to the intention of the driver and that enhances driving convenience for the driver.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights