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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final office action in response to the communication filed on 07/21/2025.
Claims 1-6 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note Regarding Potential Double Patenting
A non-statutory double patenting rejection is narrowly avoided from claim 4 of the instant application towards claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,360. A table has been created below to compare the claims. The distinguishing limitation is the difference between the “ordinary timing” of Patent No.: US 12,384,360 B2 and the “base timing” of Application # 19/274,876. Amendments to overcome the cited prior art (See, Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102, Section) may create double patenting issues during prosecution. Examiner and Applicant should be mindful of this moving forward.
Patent No.: US 12,384,360 B2
Current Application # 19/274,876
Claim 1
[A vehicle driving assistance apparatus comprising: an electronic control unit configured to: execute a driving assistance control which provides a driver of an own vehicle]
[with a driving assistance when a predetermined execution condition becomes satisfied, perform an assistance delay function and a positive assistance function,]
[and determine an ordinary timing, the ordinary timing being a time of detection of a collision before the predetermined execution condition becomes satisfied,]
[the assistance delay function being a function to change the predetermined execution condition such that a timing of starting to execute the driving assistance control is later than the ordinary timing,]
[and the positive assistance function being a function to change the predetermined execution condition such that the timing of starting to execute the driving assistance control is earlier than the ordinary timing,]
[wherein the electronic control unit is configured not to perform the assistance delay function even when the assistance delay function is requested to be performed while the positive assistance function is requested to be performed.]
Claim 1
[A vehicle driving assistance apparatus comprising a control device configured to execute a driving assistance control that provides driving assistance to a driver of an own vehicle,]
[the control device including: an assistance delay function to control a timing of starting the driving assistance control to be later than a base timing in response to a predetermined operation performed by the driver,]
[the base timing being a timing set when the predetermined operation is not performed;]
The assistance Delay Function is described in dependent Claim 4.
[and a positive assistance function to control the timing of starting the driving assistance control to be earlier than the base timing in response to a predetermined request to perform the positive assistance function,]
[wherein the control device is configured to perform the positive assistance function without performing the assistance delay function, when the predetermined request is performed, even when the predetermined operation is performed by the driver.]
Claim 4
[The vehicle driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, ]
[wherein the assistance delay function is a function to delay the timing of starting the driving assistance control to be later than the base timing when a predetermined driving operation applied to the own vehicle by the driver is detected,]
Assistance Delay Function is Identically Described
[the driving operation being an operation that has the potential to render the driving assistance by the driving assistance control unnecessary.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newman et al. (US 9701307 B1, hereinafter Newman)
Claim 1 Discloses:
“A vehicle driving assistance apparatus”
Newman teaches, (Abstract, Line 1) “A system and method to avoid collisions.”
“comprising a control device configured to execute a driving assistance control that provides driving assistance to a driver of an own vehicle,”
Newman teaches, (Page 26, Column 9, Lines 6-14) “The computing means comprises a computing environment and non-transitory computer-readable media. The computing environment comprises a computer, CPU, GPU, microprocessor, microcontroller, digital signal processor, ASIC, or other digital electronic device capable of analyzing data from sensors and preparing a collision-avoidance or a harm-minimization sequence of actions, which includes controlling the acceleration or deceleration or steering of the subject vehicle according to the sequence,” wherein, (Page 27, Column 12, Lines 3-11) “The system further includes a processor configured to analyze a large number of possible sequences of actions, each sequence comprising periods of positive acceleration and deceleration and steering of the subject vehicle in a particular order. Preferably each sequence further specifies the intensity, duration, and timing of each action. The sequences may also specify conditional steps or branches whereby alternative actions may be carried out according to an observed event or parameter.”
“the control device including: an assistance delay function to control a timing of starting the driving assistance control to be later than a base timing in response to a predetermined operation performed by the driver, the base timing being a timing set when the predetermined operation is not performed;”
Newman teaches, (Abstract, Lines 15-17) “Adjustment devices are provided to enable the driver to set the type and timing of automatic interventions,” wherein, (Page 37, Column 32, Lines 3-6, 36-40, & 47-53) “In a second version of the adjustment means, the setting controls a degree of assistance, such that the automatic system will exert more or less control over the vehicle depending on the setting … A different example of the degree of assistance is shown in a table below. Here the three levels of assistance are Low, Medium, and High Assistance, with the corresponding settings of, respectively, “Warn only”, “Relinquish on demand”, and “Intervene until safe” … With the Medium Assistance selection, the system would issue the same warning, and also would take over control of the vehicle when a collision is imminent. However, the system would then relinquish all control back to the driver if the driver asserted control by, for example, forcefully operating the steering wheel or brake or accelerator in conflict with the system control.” Relinquishing control back to the driver based upon an input such as steering effectively delays driver assistance control.
“and a positive assistance function to control the timing of starting the driving assistance control to be earlier than the base timing in response to a predetermined request to perform the positive assistance function,”
Newman teaches, (Page 37, Column 32, Lines 57-64) “In a third version of the adjustment means, the setting corresponds to a delay interval. The driver can set the delay interval from zero (no delay) to as long as 1-3 seconds for example. When the automatic system detects an imminent collision, the system would then wait for a time equal to the selected delay interval and then, if the collision is still imminent at that time, would begin the selected mitigation strategy.” Adjusting to a lower delay value would make the timing to start the driving assistance control earlier.
“wherein the control device is configured to perform the positive assistance function without performing the assistance delay function, when the predetermined request is performed, even when the predetermined operation is performed by the driver.”
Newman teaches, (Page 45, Column 48, Lines 31-37) “The three adjustments are interrelated. The delay interval 1506 begins when the threat level exceeds the intervention threshold 1504. Then, when the delay interval 1506 expires, the system provides only that amount of intervention permitted by the selected degree of assistance 1505. All three adjustable parameters are set by the driver in the version shown.” Via this invention, the delay interval 1506 takes precedence over the selected degree of assistance 1505. If the potential collision is completely avoided during the delay interval 1506, then the selected degree of assistance 1505 will never occur, despite both having been selected by the driver.
Claim 2 Discloses:
“The vehicle driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the assistance delay function is performed in response to the predetermined operation performed by the driver on a predetermined operation unit provided in the own vehicle.”
Newman teaches, (Page 36, Column 30, Lines 44-67 & Page Column 31, Lines 1-3) “The system may include adjustment means whereby the driver can select when and how the invention provides automatic assistance … The adjustment means may be a knob or switch or button, or a selector widget, or slider displayed on a touchscreen, or a voice-activated parameter adjustable by voice commands, or any other means for a human to set a parameter that a processor can read … Multiple adjustment means may be provided, with each adjustment controlling a different operational parameter of the automatic system.”
Newman additionally teaches, (Page 45, Column 48, Lines 23-27 & 35-37) “A third adjustment means is a thumbwheel labeled in milliseconds of delay which determines a delay interval 1506. For example, by setting the delay interval 1506 to 500 milliseconds, the processor will wait for that time after detecting a hazard before taking any action … All three adjustable parameters are set by the driver in the version shown.”
Claim 4 Discloses:
“The vehicle driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the assistance delay function is a function to delay the timing of starting the driving assistance control to be later than the base timing when a predetermined driving operation applied to the own vehicle by the driver is detected, the driving operation being an operation that has the potential to render the driving assistance by the driving assistance control unnecessary.”
Newman teaches, (Page 37, Column 32, Lines 3-6, 36-40, & 47-53) “In a second version of the adjustment means, the setting controls a degree of assistance, such that the automatic system will exert more or less control over the vehicle depending on the setting … A different example of the degree of assistance is shown in a table below. Here the three levels of assistance are Low, Medium, and High Assistance, with the corresponding settings of, respectively, “Warn only”, “Relinquish on demand”, and “Intervene until safe” … With the Medium Assistance selection, the system would issue the same warning, and also would take over control of the vehicle when a collision is imminent. However, the system would then relinquish all control back to the driver if the driver asserted control by, for example, forcefully operating the steering wheel or brake or accelerator in conflict with the system control.” Relinquishing control back to the driver based upon an input such as steering effectively delays driver assistance control.
Claim 5 Discloses:
“The vehicle driving assistance as set forth in claim 4 wherein the driving assistance control is a deceleration-to-stop control that autonomously decelerates and stops the own vehicle to avoid a collision of the own vehicle with an object ahead of the own vehicle,”
Newman teaches the state of the prior art in, (Pag 38, Column 34, Lines 11-13) “FIG. 1 [which] shows how a collision scenario may proceed when a prior-art automatic braking system is employed,” wherein, (Page 38, Column 34, Lines 38-41) “At time T1, the prior-art automatic braking system 108 on the subject vehicle 102 has detected that the leading vehicle 101 has stopped, and has brought the subject vehicle 102 to a stop as rapidly as possible.”
Newman subsequently teach its own, (Page 39, Column 35, Lines 50-56) “collision mitigation system 308 [which] selects a harm-minimization strategy … The harm-minimization strategy in this case comprises applying positive accelerations and decelerations to the subject vehicle 302 so as to keep the subject vehicle 302 centered between the other two vehicles as they come together,” which may be applied to the previously described vehicle leader-follower emergency stopping scenario.
“and wherein the predetermined driving operation is a driving operation applied to the own vehicle by the driver to avoid the collision of the own vehicle with the object.”
Newman teaches, (Page 37, Column 32, Lines 47-53) “With the Medium Assistance selection, the system would issue the same warning, and also would take over control of the vehicle when a collision is imminent. However, the system would then relinquish all control back to the driver if the driver asserted control by, for example, forcefully operating the steering wheel or brake or accelerator in conflict with the system control.” Steering, braking, or accelerating are known in the art to be common ways for a driver to potentially avoid a collision in a motor vehicle.
Claim 6 Discloses:
“The vehicle driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 4, wherein the control device is configured to determine that the positive assistance function is requested when a signal indicating that the driver needs the positive assistance function to be performed is received from the driver.”
Newman teaches, (Page 37, Column 32, Lines 57-64) “In a third version of the adjustment means, the setting corresponds to a delay interval. The driver can set the delay interval from zero (no delay) to as long as 1-3 seconds for example. When the automatic system detects an imminent collision, the system would then wait for a time equal to the selected delay interval and then, if the collision is still imminent at that time, would begin the selected mitigation strategy.” Adjusting to a lower delay value would make the timing to start the driving assistance control earlier.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Blumentritt. (US 2021/0061295 A1)
Claim 3 Discloses:
“The vehicle driving assistance apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to determine whether the positive assistance function is requested, based on whether a predetermined signal transmitted from a key of the own vehicle is received.”
Newman teaches, (Page 45, Column 48, Lines 23-27 & 35-37) “A third adjustment means is a thumbwheel labeled in milliseconds of delay which determines a delay interval 1506. For example, by setting the delay interval 1506 to 500 milliseconds, the processor will wait for that time after detecting a hazard before taking any action … All three adjustable parameters are set by the driver in the version shown.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, adjusting a thumbwheel is an example of sending a signal to the control unit comprising the desired assistance timing through a physical means.
Newman does not explicitly teach the predetermined signal being transmitted from a key of the own vehicle; however, it would have been obvious to do so in light of Blumentritt.
Blumentritt teaches, (Abstract, Lines 1-8) “a control System (2) for a motor vehicle (1), comprising a central vehicle Controller (3) for Controlling vehicle functions (4) and a plurality of driver assistance Systems (5). The driver assistance Systems (5) are set up to transmit a task key describing the particular assistance function thereof to the vehicle Controller (3) and to transmit a security key assigned to the particular assistance function to the vehicle Controller (3),” wherein, (Paragraph [0036], Lines 12-15) “The central vehicle control 3 may be configured to control the three vehicle functions 4, for example, to brake, steer, and accelerate or decelerate the motor vehicle 1.”
Blumentritt additionally teaches, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 16-23) “A prerequisite for executing the predetermined selection routine is that the central vehicle control must have information regarding the functions of the driver assistance systems. This means that the vehicle control must be informed as to which functions which driver assistance systems want to assume at which point in time, and whether they are provided for executing these functions in accordance with their safety keys.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Newman wherein a user is able to physically effectuate a positive assistance function with alters the timing of driving assistance, with the control system of Blumentritt with transmits task keys describing a particular assistance function, the timing of which may be executed in accordance with a safety key, to arrive at the claimed invention in order to yield predictable results.
Combining the references would yield the benefits of safely executing driving assistance per the desires of the user. As Blumentritt describes, (Paragraph [0042], Lines 1-4) “In the framework of the safety check, the central vehicle control 3 can also check whether the activation or execution of the desired function of the driver assistance system 5 makes sense,” and further describes, (Paragraph [0028], Lines 24-25) “This results in a particular safe functioning of the control system.”
RELEVANT, BUT NOT CITED PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Takahashi et al., (JP 2019202586 A) discloses, (Paragraph [0006]) “The present invention provides a driving assistance device that controls a safety device for avoiding a collision between a host vehicle and an object, based on detection information from an object detection device that detects an object around the host vehicle. This driving assistance device includes an object recognition unit that recognizes a target object that is a target for collision avoidance on the path of the host vehicle from the detection information; an operation determination unit that calculates a predicted collision time between the target object and the host vehicle and activates the safety device if the predicted collision time is equal to or shorter than a predetermined activation timing; an inhibition delay unit that executes and activation inhibition that inhibits the operation of the safety device or an activation delay that delays the activation timing, on condition that the driver has performed a steering operation to avoid a collision of the host vehicle; and a suppression unit that
suppresses the activation inhibition or the activation delay, on condition that the object recognition unit has recognized a target object that is a target for collision avoidance on the path of the host vehicle after the driver has performed a steering operation.”
Takahashi et al. (WO 2020129731 A1) discloses, (Paragraph [0008]) “a driving assistance device that calculates a vehicle's path based on the yaw rate of the vehicle, and performs driving assistance processing to avoid or mitigate a collision with an object based on a possibility of a collision with the object in a target area including the vehicle's path. 66 The driving assistance device includes a reliability calculation unit that calculates a reliability indicating the certainty of the vehicle's course based on steering parameters including at least one of a yaw rate change rate, which is a time rate of change of the yaw rate, and a steering speed, and a restriction unit that restricts the implementation of the driving assistance processing based on the calculated reliability.”
Minemura et al., (US 2018/0118203 A1) discloses, (Abstract) “A driving assist apparatus activates a safety device for avoiding a collision of an own vehicle with a target or reducing damage from the collision. The driving assist apparatus determines start of a collision avoidance operation for the target. The driving assist apparatus performs a delaying process for delaying an activation timing of the safety device, when the start of the collision avoidance operation is determined, the delaying process setting the activation timing to a timing later than a timing that would be set when the start of the collision avoidance operation is not determined. The driving assist apparatus determines, based on the activation timing, whether to activate the safety device. The driving assist apparatus continuously performs the delaying process until a predetermined time period elapses after the start of the collision avoidance operation.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER V. GENTILE whose telephone number is (703)756-1501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Kito R. Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ALEXANDER V GENTILE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights