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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, and 16-20 recite “in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance” but should instead recite --in [[a]] the case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at [[a]] the distance closer than the first distance-- since these limitations were previously introduced in the claims.
Claims 2-3, 6-9, 12-13, and 16-19 recite “in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the fourth distance” but should instead recite --in [[a]] the case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at [[a]] the distance closer than the fourth distance-- since these limitations were previously introduced in the claims.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 recite “receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation” but should instead recite --receiving, in [[a]] the suppressed manner, [[an]] the acceleration operation-- since these limitations were previously introduced in the claims.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “in a case where the sensor device does not detect the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance” but should instead recite --in a case where the sensor device does not detect the obstacle at [[a]] the distance closer than the first distance-- since these limitations were previously introduced in the claims.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “stopping the reception in a suppressed manner” but should instead recite --stopping the reception in [[a]] the suppressed manner-- since these limitations were previously introduced in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for
“means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”)
or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “operation device” in claims 1-20, “sensor device” in claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20, “display device” in claims 1-20, “movement control device” in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “operation device” in claims 1-20, “sensor device” in claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20, “display device” in claims 1-20, “movement control device” in claims 1-20 all use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic
placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Operation device: [0027] - The operation device 20 receives an operation by a passenger of the vehicle 1. The operation device 20 includes a steering device such as the steering wheel, an operation mechanism related to a driving operation such as an accelerator pedal, a brake pedal, a turn signal lever, and a push-button switch, and an input device such as a keyboard, a touch panel, or a switch.
Sensor device: [0019] - The sensor device 14 includes at least one of a camera 16, a light detection and ranging (LiDAR), a radar, a sonar, and an ultrasonic sensor. In addition, the sensor device 14 includes an accelerator pedal position sensor that detects an accelerator pedal position, a steering angle sensor that detects a steering angle of the steering device, a steering wheel rotation operation angle detection sensor that detects an angle of a steering wheel rotation operation of a steering wheel, an acceleration sensor that detects the acceleration applied during the acceleration and the deceleration of the vehicle 1, a torque sensor that detects a torque acting on the power transmission mechanism between the wheels of the vehicle I and the drive motor, a vehicle speed sensor that detects a vehicle speed of the vehicle 1, a wheel speed sensor, and the like.
Display device: [0028] - The display device 22 is a display that outputs various images. The display device 22 is installed at a position visually recognizable by the passenger of the vehicle 1. Examples of the display include a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic electro- luminescence (EL) display, and a projector. The display may also be a touch panel display in which the display device 22 and the operation device 20 are integrally configured. The display device 22 is an example of the HMI.
Movement control device: [0013] - The movement control device 12 controls at least deceleration of the vehicle 1. The movement control device 12 is means for implementing driving, braking, and turning motions necessary for traveling of the vehicle 1. For example, the movement control device 12 includes a drive motor, a power transmission mechanism, a brake device, a steering device, and the like, and an electronic vehicle control device that controls the drive motor, the power transmission mechanism, the brake device, the steering device, and the like. The movement control device 12 causes the vehicle 1 to travel by, for example, generating power with the drive motor and transmitting the power to wheels via the power transmission mechanism. The power transmission mechanism is, for example, a propeller shaft, a differential gear, a drive shaft, or the like.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 2022/0289176 A1) in view of Miura (US 2019/0146519 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Baek discloses a vehicle control method and a vehicle control device provided in a vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0060-0061, 0114] – ADAS 100 may provide a variety of functions to the driver… includes a collision avoidance device 200), the vehicle including an operation device to receive an operation of a passenger (see at least [0053-0055, 0058] – driver’s intention to accelerate through an accelerator pedal… driver’s shift command through a shift lever… driver’s intention to brake through a brake pedal… driver operates the steering wheel), a sensor device to detect an outside situation (see at least [0064] - camera module 101 obtains image data around the vehicle 1 and radar module 102 obtains obstacle data around the vehicle), a display device to display information visually recognizable by the passenger (see at least [0185] – display 270), and a movement control device to control at least deceleration of the vehicle (see at least [0046] – engine 10, transmission 20, braking device 30, steering device 40), the vehicle control device comprising: a hardware processor connected to a memory and configured to perform processing (see at least [0098] – processor 141 and memory 142), the processing including: decelerating the vehicle at a first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects an obstacle at a distance closer than a first distance from the vehicle in a traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0157-0160, 0180, 0182, 0193, 0195] - obtain relative distance information with the obstacles based on the image obtained by the image obtainer 210 and the obstacle information detected by the obstacle detector... control operation of the pre-braking unit 32 b so that the deceleration of the vehicle becomes the first deceleration… determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during traveling of the vehicle with an acceleration and deceleration operation and a steering operation by the passenger (see at least [0053-0055, 0058, 0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), and causing the display device to display information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage); and decelerating the vehicle at a second deceleration greater than the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than a fourth distance shorter than the third distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at a predetermined speed from a second distance shorter than the first distance to a third distance shorter than the second distance within a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at a predetermined speed from a second distance shorter than the first distance to a third distance shorter than the second distance within a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Miura into the invention of Baek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that by implementing a deceleration pattern which causes the vehicle to travel at the constant speed after the first deceleration, it is possible to more smoothly stop the vehicle and to suppress unpleasant feelings experienced by occupants in the vehicle due to unnecessary speed fluctuations (Miura – [0018-0020]). Implementing a period of constant speed travel between Baek’s first deceleration and second deceleration would provide a smoother and less abrupt braking experience for passengers by eliminating a continuous braking maneuver with varying levels of deceleration. This modification could be implemented to yield predictable results because this deceleration pattern with the constant speed would still effectively prevent collision with the forward obstacle, but would do so in a smoother and more pleasant manner for the occupants of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - control operation of the pre-braking unit 32 b so that the deceleration of the vehicle becomes the first deceleration) and causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation by the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), and causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage); and decelerating the vehicle at the second deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the fourth distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Baek discloses wherein the movement control device of the vehicle controls acceleration and deceleration and steering (see at least [0046] – engine 10, braking device 30, steering device 40), the vehicle operates in a first traveling mode in which the vehicle autonomously travels by autonomously controlling at least the acceleration and deceleration and the steering (see at least [0045, 0063, 0155] – autonomous driving mode in which the vehicle autonomous drives to a destination… controls lane change, acceleration, and deceleration), or in a second traveling mode in which the deceleration is autonomously controlled without autonomously controlling at least the steering and the acceleration (see at least [0045, 0157-0158] – manual driving mode in which the vehicle is driven in response to driver’s driving intention… control the braking system 32 to avoid a collision while performing the manual mode), and the vehicle control method further comprises: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation by the passenger in the second traveling mode (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed), causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), and causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage); and decelerating the vehicle at the second deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the fourth distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Miura and Zhang (JP 2018-74286 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Baek discloses wherein the sensor device includes a camera to capture at least part of surroundings of the vehicle (see at least [0064-0065] - camera module 101 that obtains image data around the vehicle 1)
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor device includes a camera to capture at least part of surroundings of the vehicle as a video, and the display device displays the video including the obstacle.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the sensor device includes a camera to capture at least part of surroundings of the vehicle as a video (see at least [0014] – camera 11 is a video camera capturing images of the surroundings of the vehicle 20), and the display device displays the video including the obstacle (see at least Figs. 6A-11B, [0022] – an obstacle in the video captured by the camera 11 is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the invention of Baek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to highlight or otherwise emphasize the presence of an obstacle to more effectively draw the driver’s attention to the obstacle, thereby enhancing the driving assistance effect (Zhang - [0033, 0048]). This would improve driving safety by alerting or otherwise indicating to the driver that an obstacle is present.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the obstacle captured in the video displayed by the display device is highlighted.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the obstacle captured in the video displayed by the display device is highlighted (see at least Figs. 6A-11B, [0033, 0042-0043, 0048] – highlight and display obstacles).
The motivation to combine Baek and Zhang is the same as in the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation of the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; and causing the display device to display the video including the obstacle.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the display device to display the video including the obstacle (see at least Figs. 6A-11B, [0022] – an obstacle in the video captured by the camera 11 is displayed).
The motivation to combine Baek and Zhang is the same as in the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Miura and Jiao (CN 108189709 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation of the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the fourth distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; causing the display device to display information prompting the passenger to perform a deceleration operation.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Jiao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the display device to display information prompting the passenger to perform a deceleration operation (see at least [0119-0120] – when the distance between the vehicle and the obstacle ahead detected by ADAS is less than 100m, the ADAS system will continuously prompt the driver to manually brake and slow down to ensure a safe distance through the in-vehicle navigation display or alarm beep).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Jiao into the invention of Baek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to provide assistance to supplement the driver in complex vehicle operation processes, greatly improving driving safety and comfort, and effectively preventing car accidents (Jiao - [0122]). This also enables the automatic braking and manual braking to be switched feely without any signal conflict, without damage to the vehicle, and without any impact on the driver’s active control of the braking system (Jiao - [0124]). This alerts the driver of a possible collision and allows the driver to takeover braking, which gives the driver a greater sense of control over preventing the collision and improves comfort of the driver.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Miura and Cai (CN 115402098 A, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation of the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; and receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Cai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device (see at least [n0036] – if there are obstacles within the safety recognition range, an acceleration limit command is issued to prevent the driver from accidentally operating the accelerator of the vehicle which could lead to abnormal acceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Cai into the invention of Baek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prevent the driver from accidentally operating the accelerator of the vehicle when there are obstacles within the safety recognition range, which can lead to abnormal acceleration and potentially cause a traffic accident (Cai - [n0036]). Implementing this feature would improve safety in the presence of obstacles.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation of the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), (see at least Fig. 5, [0194-0195] - control the emergency braking unit (as seen in Fig. 5, the emergency braking applies a greater deceleration than the pre-braking) when the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the fourth distance corresponds to timing just after T3a, similar to Applicant’s fourth distance L4 in Fig. 4)).
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device, and causing the display device to display information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Cai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device (see at least [n0036] – if there are obstacles within the safety recognition range, an acceleration limit command is issued to prevent the driver from accidentally operating the accelerator of the vehicle which could lead to abnormal acceleration), and causing the display device to display information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited (see at least [n0007, n0021, 0073] – when there is an obstacle within the safe recognition range, display the acceleration limit of the vehicle).
The motivation to combine Baek and Cai is the same as in the rejection of claims 8 and 18 above.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Baek discloses further comprising: decelerating the vehicle at the first deceleration, in a case where the sensor device detects the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5, [0193, 0195] - determine whether the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the first distance corresponds to timing T2a, similar to Applicant’s first distance L1 in Fig. 4), and in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit at a timing T2a) during the traveling of the vehicle with the acceleration and deceleration operation and the steering operation of the passenger (see at least [0157] – while the manual driving mode is being performed); causing the vehicle to travel (see at least Fig. 5, [0193-0195] – control the pre-braking unit until the relative distance with the obstacle is the third braking distance (i.e., in Fig. 5 of Baek, the second and third distances correspond to timing T3b to T3a, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)), causing the display device to display the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage), and, in a case where the sensor device does not detect the obstacle at a distance closer than the first distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction of the vehicle, causing the display device to stop displaying the information representing that the vehicle is being intentionally decelerated (see at least Fig. 5, [0190, 0192-0193] – in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the first braking distance controls the operation of the sound device… in response to determining that the relative distance with the obstacle is the second braking distance controls the operation of the pre-braking unit and controls the operation of the display to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage (i.e., at a distance greater than the second braking distance the display is not operated to output the collision risk information corresponding to the warning of the second stage),
Baek does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device, and causing the display device to display information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited; stopping the reception in a suppressed manner of the acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device, and causing the display device to stop displaying the information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited.
Miura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: causing the vehicle to travel at the predetermined speed from the second distance to the third distance within the distance from the vehicle to the obstacle (see at least Fig. 9, [0082] - the deceleration controller 152 decelerates the subject vehicle up to a third monitoring speed Vw3 in a period T4 and causes the subject vehicle M to maintain the third monitoring speed Vw3 (causes the subject vehicle M to travel at a constant speed) in a period T5 (i.e., in Fig. 9 of Miura, the second distance corresponds to the beginning of period T5 and the third distance corresponds to the ending of period T5, similar to Applicant’s second distance L2 and third distance L3 in Fig. 4)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Miura is the same as in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Cai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: receiving, in a suppressed manner, an acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device (see at least [n0036] – if there are obstacles within the safety recognition range, an acceleration limit command is issued to prevent the driver from accidentally operating the accelerator of the vehicle which could lead to abnormal acceleration), and causing the display device to display information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited (see at least [n0007, n0021, 0073] – when there is an obstacle within the safe recognition range, display the acceleration limit of the vehicle); stopping the reception in a suppressed manner of the acceleration operation by the passenger on the operation device (see at least [n0037] – when there are no obstacles within the safety recognition range, the electric vehicle can be driven normally, which means it can accelerate normally, so no acceleration limit command is obtained at this time), and causing the display device to stop displaying the information representing that the reception of the acceleration operation by the passenger is being limited (see at least [n0007, n0021, 0073] – when there is an obstacle within the safe recognition range, display the acceleration limit of the vehicle (i.e., when there are no obstacles and there is no acceleration limit, no acceleration limit will be displayed)).
The motivation to combine Baek and Cai is the same as in the rejection of claims 8 and 18 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following relevant prior art was cited but not applied: Yoneda (US 2018/0181118 A1), Ozawa (US 2019/0061744 A1), and Inaba (US 2023/0021615 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights