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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-135853, filed on 08/16/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 filed on 06/30/2025 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozuka (US 20180029593 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 12017628 B2), hereinafter referred to as Kozuka and Yamamoto, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Kozuka discloses A vehicle controller comprising: A processor configured to: detect abnormality occurring in a driver of a vehicle ([abstract] “an abnormality determining device configured to determine whether the driver is in an abnormal state.”), decelerate the vehicle so that a ratio of braking force of rear wheels of the vehicle to braking force of front wheels of the vehicle is a first ratio, when abnormality occurring in the driver is detected ([0010] “control unit may be configured to decelerate the vehicle when the abnormality determining device determines that the driver is in the abnormal state.” [0065] “target braking forces Fbti (i=fl, fr, rl, and rr) of the left front wheel, the right front wheel, the left rear wheel and the right rear wheel for decelerating the vehicle 18” [0078] “a difference ΔFv (=Fvt−Fmt) between the target braking force Fvt and the target braking force Fmt is distributed to the front wheels and the rear wheels at the predetermined front-rear wheel distribution ratio.”), and
Kozuka does not adjust the braking ratios when abnormality is not detected, since adjustment of braking ratios is triggered upon abnormality detection. However, Kozuka fails to explicitly disclose set the first ratio to a value greater than a second ratio, the second ratio being the ratio of braking force of the rear wheels to braking force of the front wheels for a case where the vehicle decelerates when an abnormality occurring in the driver is not detected.
However, Yamamoto teaches set the first ratio to a value greater than a second ratio, the second ratio being the ratio of braking force of the rear wheels to braking force of the front wheels for a case where the vehicle decelerates when autonomous mode is not active. ([abstract] “a target front and rear braking force distribution ratio based on a target pitch angle” [column 19, lines 47-61] “the target pitch angle PATr is changed between the time of automatic braking of the vehicle and the time of vehicle braking accompanying the driver's braking operation. The driver is likely to feel the deceleration feeling of the vehicle by generating a pitching moment PM in the nose dive direction in the vehicle when the vehicle is decelerating. Therefore, during braking accompanying the braking operation, the target pitch angle PATr is set to a value in the nose dive direction. Therefore, the deceleration feeling of the vehicle can be given to the driver through changes in the orientation of the vehicle. On the other hand, at the time of automatic braking of the vehicle, the target pitch angle PATr is set to suppress the change in the pitch angle PA accompanying the vehicle deceleration.” Higher rear brake force is used during automatic braking for comfort, while a regular/lower rear brake force is used during manual braking by the driver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kozuka with Yamamoto’s teaching of two different brake ratios. One would be motivated with a reasonable expectation of success to use two different brake ratios in order to provide comfortability of the occupant in autonomous mode and feeling deceleration in manual mode (Yamamoto [column 19, lines 61-63] “Therefore, the comfortability of the vehicle occupant during the automatic traveling of the vehicle may be improved.” [column 19, lines 50-52] “feel the deceleration feeling of the vehicle by generating a pitching moment PM in the nose dive direction”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record does not reasonably teach nor suggest the following limitations recited in claim 2:
the processor identifies a type of abnormality occurring in the driver, based on an interior sensor signal obtained by a vehicle interior sensor for sensing the driver's state, and
the processor decelerates the vehicle at the first ratio when the type of abnormality occurring in the driver is a first type that does not allow jolting the driver, and decelerates the vehicle at the second ratio when the type of abnormality occurring in the driver is a second type different from the first type.
Kozuka discloses The vehicle controller according to claim 1, wherein the processor identifies a type of abnormality occurring in the driver, based on an interior sensor signal obtained by a vehicle interior sensor for sensing the driver's state ([column 5, lines 40-45] “the driver monitoring system 128 could include collection of cameras/sensors that monitors a driver's attentiveness (eyes/gaze, tiredness, heartbeat, etc.) and interactivity with components of the vehicle 100 (steering wheel control/contact, accelerator/brake pedal modulation, etc.).”).
Kozuka fails to explicitly disclose the processor decelerates the vehicle at the first ratio when the type of abnormality occurring in the driver is a first type that does not allow jolting the driver, and decelerates the vehicle at the second ratio when the type of abnormality occurring in the driver is a second type different from the first type.
Yamamoto teaches the processor decelerates the vehicle at the first ratio that does not allow jolting the driver, and decelerates the vehicle at the second ratio which are different ratios used for manual and autonomous braking modes in the vehicle ([abstract] “a target front and rear braking force distribution ratio based on a target pitch angle” [column 19, lines 47-61] “the target pitch angle PATr is changed between the time of automatic braking of the vehicle and the time of vehicle braking accompanying the driver's braking operation. The driver is likely to feel the deceleration feeling of the vehicle by generating a pitching moment PM in the nose dive direction in the vehicle when the vehicle is decelerating. Therefore, during braking accompanying the braking operation, the target pitch angle PATr is set to a value in the nose dive direction. Therefore, the deceleration feeling of the vehicle can be given to the driver through changes in the orientation of the vehicle. On the other hand, at the time of automatic braking of the vehicle, the target pitch angle PATr is set to suppress the change in the pitch angle PA accompanying the vehicle deceleration.”).
However, Yamamoto does not detect driver abnormalities and does not control front-rear braking ratios based on different types of driver abnormalities that allow or disallow jolting of the driver using different braking ratios.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights