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 .
Claim Status
Claims 12 and 24 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are canceled.
Claims 12-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to claims 12-24 rejections under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because of the processor is not recited as a generic processor, but is instead recited with a specific configuration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per the prior Office Action of record claims 12 and 24 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations and (underlined) additional elements (or limitations analogous to):
“A vehicle system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of a vehicle at a signaling unit, comprising:
a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor that is configured to:
detect that a configuration change of a property of the driving function is effected by a user of the vehicle at a configuration time or at a configuration position of the vehicle, wherein the configuration change of the property of the driving function comprises a change to an automatic mode or a manual mode;
determine that a first signaling unit located ahead in a direction of travel of the vehicle has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or at the configuration position; and
automatically adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle taking the configuration change to an automatic mode or a manual mode into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle only for a signaling unit following the first signaling unit and/or only after the automated longitudinal guidance with respect to the first signaling unit has been concluded.”
Per the prior Office Action of record, the bolded limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, detecting, by a human, an effect of a configuration change, determining a status of a signal ahead, and considering the configuration change based on the status.
The Applicant argues that the bolded limitations is evidence that the processor is not a generic processor, but is instead a processor with a specific recited configuration. However, MPEP 2106.05 recites:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
It can be seen above that the abstract ideas are merely applied to a processor that is configured to execute the said abstract idea and does not qualify as “significantly more” to take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping.
Next, Applicant argues “that the processor of the vehicle guidance system performs to adjust driving functions of a vehicle based on configuration changes to an automatic mode or manual mode during automated longitudinal guidance. The position of the Examiner that the elements may be interpreted as mental processes is not consistent with the actual language of the claims.”
As seen above and in the prior Office Action of record, the adjustment method is further analyzed under step 2A Prong Two as reciting an additional element and not a mental process. The limitation generically claims to adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle with no further explanation as to what is being adjusted or how the adjustment is made. As such, the adjustment limitation does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, as argued upon above. Furthermore, the consideration portion of the claimed limitation is classified as a mental process, as considering (i.e. thinking or reasoning) is a mental process that can be done in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
A detailed rejection follows below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025, 07/24/2025, 09/24/2025, 10/10/2025, 10/22/2025, 12/10/2025, 01/07/2026, 01/16/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Applicant has submitted 8 information disclosure statements (IDSs), comprising 138 pre-grant publications, 10 patents, 117 foreign patent documents, and 81 non-patent literature (NPL) references, totaling 346 documents, which is excessive for any Examiner to have to consider at any level beyond a cursory review.
According to MPEP Section 2004 “Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]”, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance.” Additionally, per MPEP Section 609.04(a)(III): “applicants are encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the English-language information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability.” See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v.Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
As such, even though the IDS has been placed in the application file with the lists of references marked as considered, and the compilation of those listed PG Publications and Patent references have at least been key-word searched and/or classification searched for relevant prior art, the information referred to therein for each individual reference has admittedly not been fully considered beyond a cursory review. If Applicant wishes to have one or more references fully considered, the Examiner requests resubmitting the IDSs with a reasonable number of references that are known to be pertinent for the determination of patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, along with the concise explanations as to relevance and citations explaining the locations of relevant passages or figures, as per 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) and 37 CFR § 1.105.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 12-24 are directed to a system and a method. Therefore, claim(s) 12-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 24 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A vehicle system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of a vehicle at a signaling unit, comprising:
a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor that is configured to:
detect that a configuration change of a property of the driving function is effected by a user of the vehicle at a configuration time or at a configuration position of the vehicle, wherein the configuration change of the property of the driving function comprises a change to an automatic mode or a manual mode;
determine that a first signaling unit located ahead in a direction of travel of the vehicle has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or at the configuration position; and
automatically adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle taking the configuration change to an automatic mode or a manual mode into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle only for a signaling unit following the first signaling unit.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, detecting, by a human, an effect of a configuration change, determining a status of a signal ahead, and considering the configuration change based on the status. The mere recitation of a generic computing component would not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim 12 and 24 recites the following (underlined) additional limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A vehicle system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of a vehicle at a signaling unit, comprising:
a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor that is configured to:
detect that a configuration change of a property of the driving function is effected by a user of the vehicle at a configuration time or at a configuration position of the vehicle, wherein the configuration change of the property of the driving function comprises a change to an automatic mode or a manual mode;
determine that a first signaling unit located ahead in a direction of travel of the vehicle has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or at the configuration position; and
automatically adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle taking the configuration change to an automatic mode or a manual mode into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle only for a signaling unit following the first signaling unit.”
This claimed limitation recites the additional elements of a vehicle system and a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor. The functions of the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the automatically adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to claim 12, a vehicle system and a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor is recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than additional elements of instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
With respect to the automatically adjust function of the vehicle is performed at a high level of generality. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding claims 16, 18-19, and 21, the claims recite additional considerations wherein the claimed limitation are functions/processes that can be done entirely manually by a human using pen and paper, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a human considering additional information. The functions described by these limitations are also functions typical of generic computing components, and the functions performed or not performed may be entirely within the realm of computer functions. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 21, the claims recite controlling (i.e., operating, outputting, causing) wherein the function of controlling the vehicle is performed at a high level of generality. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 22 additionally recites a stop line, which is a product that is merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and is therefore mere extra-solution to the abstract idea. See In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Claim 23 additionally a color of a light signal, limiting the data to a particular type, which amounts to field of use. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The various metrics/limitations of claims 14-15 and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g., detect, determine, consider). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim(s) 12-24 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (20110254701; already of record) in view of Gordon et al. (20180208203; hereinafter Gordon; already of record).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches a vehicle system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of a vehicle at a signaling unit (Yamada: Abstract), comprising:
a vehicle guidance system comprising a processor (Yamada: “a driving assisting device 100” ¶ 51) that is configured to:
detect that a configuration change of a property of the driving function is effected by a user of the vehicle at a configuration time or at a configuration position of the vehicle (Yamada: “when a driver selects service end setting ... when a driver presses down an accelerator, and the like may be considered as the service end conditions” ¶ 83),
...
determine that a first signaling unit located ahead in a direction of travel of the vehicle has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time (Yamada: “in the driving assisting device 100 in which the receiver 130 acquires the time-series traffic signal information regarding the lighting state of a traffic signal” ¶ 84, “The infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 provides the driver with the lighting time information regarding a time remaining until a red signal of a traffic signal changes ... and performs driving assisting by performing brake control using the brake ECU 122 and accelerator control using the accelerator ECU” ¶ 60) or at the configuration position; and
automatically adjust operations of the driving function of the vehicle (Yamada: “The infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 provides the driver with the lighting time information regarding a time remaining until a red signal of a traffic signal changes and the like ... and performs driving assisting” ¶ 60) ... during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle only for a signaling unit following the first signaling unit (Yamada: “FIG. 6, when the lighting time of a plurality of red signals is known from the acquired traffic signal information and the next signals of some red signals are unknown, the infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 determines that the service of notification of a signal waiting time is not executable” ¶ 67, “the determination regarding whether or not the host vehicle has arrived at the traffic signal while the red signal is lit is performed on the basis of the acquired traffic signal information, the position of the host vehicle acquired from the information of the GPS 112 and the map information DB 121, a remaining distance to the stop line, the existence of an intersection on the way, or the like” ¶ 68).
However, Yamada fails to teach wherein the configuration change of the property of the driving function comprises a change to an automatic mode or a manual mode
...
taking the configuration change to an automatic mode or manual mode into consideration
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches the claim limitation of wherein the configuration change of the property of the driving function comprises a change to an automatic mode or a manual mode (Gordon: “analysis of all the factors (or one factor), an appropriate course of action for the vehicle is performed to employ the driver-assisted capability of automatic braking, to warn the driver that he/she will not make it through the intersection prior to the light turning red (so that he/she can make his/her own determination of a course of action), or to allow the car and the driver's efforts to continue without any assistance or changes in course” ¶ 27)
...
taking the configuration change to an automatic mode or manual mode into consideration (Gordon:, “the assessment of a driver's behavior and current cognitive state along with the assessment of a traffic signal and the car's details (e.g., speed, trajectory, distance to end of intersection, etc.) are used to determine the best course of action (i.e., whether to allow the driver to continue unimpeded, to send warning signals or alerts to the driver, or to employ an automatic braking mechanism to slow the car or to bring the car to a stop)” ¶ 35).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of automatic mode and manual mode determination, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve driver and surrounding safety (Gordon: ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches to the vehicle system according to claim 12,
However, Yamada fails to teach wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to:
not take into consideration and/or ignore the configuration change during operation of the driving function at the first signaling unit; and/or
operate the driving function at the first signaling unit as if the configuration change were not effected.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to:
not take into consideration and/or ignore the configuration change during operation of the driving function at the first signaling unit (Gordon: “analysis of all the factors (or one factor), an appropriate course of action for the vehicle is performed to employ the driver-assisted capability of automatic braking, to warn the driver that he/she will not make it through the intersection prior to the light turning red (so that he/she can make his/her own determination of a course of action), or to allow the car and the driver's efforts to continue without any assistance or changes in course” ¶ 27); and/or
operate the driving function at the first signaling unit as if the configuration change were not effected.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of ignoring configuration change, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve driver and surrounding safety (Gordon: ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to take the configuration change into consideration as of that signaling unit on a route of the vehicle, during operation of the driving function, which:
directly follows the first signaling unit (Yamada: “In the driving assisting device 100 in which the receiver 130 acquires the time-series traffic signal information regarding the lighting state of a traffic signal and the display 114 and the speaker 116 provide the lighting time information regarding a time remaining until a red signal of the traffic signal changes, the display 114 and the speaker 116 provide the lighting time information regarding the time remaining until the red signal of the traffic signal changes only when the conditions where the stopping of a host vehicle is predicted are satisfied” ¶ 85, see also ¶ 84); and/or
directly follows a last signaling unit on the route of the vehicle which has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or at the configuration position.
Regarding claim 16, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to:
However, Yamada fails to teach take the configuration change into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle as of a consideration time following the configuration time or as of a consideration position following the configuration position; and
determine the consideration time or the consideration position in such a manner that:
(i) the configuration change does not influence the operation of the driving function at the first signaling unit; and/or
(ii) the configuration change does not influence the operation of the driving function at a signaling unit which has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or the configuration position.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches take the configuration change into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle as of a consideration time following the configuration time (Gordon: “a risk “R” is calculated by determining a level of driver distraction or cognitive impairment (e.g., the cognitive state of the driver), and a difficulty “D” in stopping the vehicle within the required time to avoid running the red light or causing an accident at the intersection” ¶ 33) or as of a consideration position following the configuration position; and
determine the consideration time or the consideration position in such a manner that:
(i) the configuration change does not influence the operation of the driving function at the first signaling unit (Gordon: “to allow the car and the driver's efforts to continue without any assistance or changes in course” ¶ 27); and/or
(ii) the configuration change does not influence the operation of the driving function at a signaling unit which has already been taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the configuration time or the configuration position.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of a consideration time and not configuration change not influencing the operation, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve driver and surrounding safety (Gordon: ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to:
However, Yamada fails to teach operate the driving function in the automatic mode and in the manual mode, wherein a signaling unit is taken into consideration automatically in the automatic mode and is taken into consideration in the manual mode only after confirmation by a user of the vehicle during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle; and
continue to operate the driving function in the automatic mode at the first signaling unit even if the configuration change causes a change from the automatic mode to the manual mode; and/or
operate the driving function in the manual mode only for the signaling unit following the first signaling unit if the configuration change causes a change from the automatic mode to the manual mode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches operate the driving function in the automatic mode and in the manual mode, wherein a signaling unit is taken into consideration automatically in the automatic mode and is taken into consideration in the manual mode only after confirmation by a user of the vehicle during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle (Gordon: “a vehicle control action is performed on the vehicle at the intersection based on (a combination of) the cognitive state of the driver, the status of the upcoming traffic signal, and the intersection data” ¶ 26, “analysis of all the factors (or one factor), an appropriate course of action for the vehicle is performed to employ the driver-assisted capability of automatic braking, to warn the driver that he/she will not make it through the intersection prior to the light turning red (so that he/she can make his/her own determination of a course of action), or to allow the car and the driver's efforts to continue without any assistance or changes in course” ¶ 27); and
continue to operate the driving function in the automatic mode at the first signaling unit even if the configuration change causes a change from the automatic mode to the manual mode (Gordon: “Preferences may be set or the driver can be allowed to decide what to do. As evident above, the system may override a user's preferences to ensure safety of the driver as well as those vehicles and persons around the driver” ¶ 39, see also ¶ 20); and/or
operate the driving function in the manual mode only for the signaling unit following the first signaling unit if the configuration change causes a change from the automatic mode to the manual mode.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of automated vehicle control and manual mode determination, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve driver and surrounding safety (Gordon: ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 17, wherein the vehicle guidance system in the manual mode is configured to:
output an offer relating to the consideration of a signaling unit to a user of the vehicle, via a user interface of the vehicle (Yamada: “The display (information providing means) 114 is for providing the driver with the lighting time information regarding a time remaining until a red signal of a traffic signal changes and the like” ¶ 53); and
...
However, Yamada fails to teach take the signaling unit into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the signaling unit if the offer is accepted by the user; and/or
not take the signaling unit into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the signaling unit if the offer is not accepted by the user.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches take the signaling unit into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the signaling unit if the offer is accepted by the user (Gordon: “take the signaling unit into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the signaling unit if the offer is accepted by the user” ¶ 39); and/or
not take the signaling unit into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the signaling unit if the offer is not accepted by the user.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of displaying an offer, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve guidance based on driver preference (Gordon: ¶ 39).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 17, wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured, in the automated mode, to:
take into consideration a signaling unit, detected on the basis of map data (Yamada: “a map information DB 121 in which map information is recorded ... the time-series traffic signal information regarding the past lighting state of a traffic signal in each location is recorded in the storage device 120” ¶ 59, see also ¶ 60) and/or environmental data, automatically without confirmation by the user of the vehicle during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle (Yamada: “provides the driver with the lighting time information regarding a time remaining until a red signal of a traffic signal changes and the like ... and the time-series traffic signal information regarding the past lighting state of the traffic signal in each location which is recorded in the storage device 120, and performs driving assisting by performing brake control using the brake ECU 122 and accelerator control using the accelerator ECU” ¶ 60).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein:
the configuration change is aimed at deactivating the driving function (Yamada: “a driver selects service end setting” ¶ 83); and
the vehicle guidance system is configured to deactivate the driving function only when the automated longitudinal guidance with respect to the first signaling unit has been concluded (Yamada: “the infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 ends the service when the service end conditions are satisfied (S18)” ¶ 83) and/or has been overridden by a driver of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured, if a signaling unit is taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle, to:
determine whether or not the vehicle must stop at the signaling unit on the basis of data relating to the signaling unit (Yamada: “a signal cycle and determination regarding whether or not a signal waiting time notification service is executable. As shown in FIG. 3, when the next signal of a target red signal is a green signal (including the case where the host vehicle enters during a yellow signal lighting period in order to ensure safety) or an arrow lamp of the traveling direction of the host vehicle (for example, an arrow lamp of the straight-ahead direction or an arrow lamp which permits traveling in all directions), the infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 determines whether or not the service of notification of a signal waiting time is executable” ¶ 65 see also ¶ 66, 70, 82); and
...
at the signaling unit if it is determined that the vehicle must stop at the signaling unit (Yamada: “provide the lighting time information regarding the time remaining until the red signal of the traffic signal changes only when the conditions where the stopping of a host vehicle is predicted are satisfied” ¶ 85, see also ¶ 74); and/or
(ii) cause the vehicle to be longitudinally guided in an automated manner past the signaling unit if it is determined that the vehicle need not stop at the signaling unit.
However, Yamada fails to teach (i) cause the vehicle to be stopped in an automated manner.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gordon teaches (i) cause the vehicle to be stopped in an automated manner (Gordon: “a threshold value required to stop before the traffic signal while stopping the vehicle will not cause a vehicle behind the driver's vehicle to hit the driver's vehicle, a vehicle control action of automatic braking to stop the vehicle before the traffic signal can be performed” ¶ 28).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the guidance system of Yamada so that it also includes the element of stopping in an automated manner, as taught by Gordon, in order to improve vehicle guidance safety (Gordon: ¶ 28, 32).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 21, wherein the stop at the signaling unit is at a stop line of the signaling unit (Yamada: “determination regarding whether or not the host vehicle has arrived at the traffic signal while the red signal is lit is performed on the basis of the acquired traffic signal information, the position of the host vehicle acquired from the information of the GPS 112 and the map information DB 121, a remaining distance to the stop line” ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 23, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 21, wherein the data relating to the signaling unit is a color of a light signal from the signaling unit that is indicated by the data (Yamada: Fig. 6, “the next signal of a target red signal is a green signal (including the case where the host vehicle enters during a yellow signal lighting period in order to ensure safety) or an arrow lamp of the traveling direction of the host vehicle (for example, an arrow lamp of the straight-ahead direction or an arrow lamp which permits traveling in all directions), the infrastructure cooperation ECU 110 determines whether or not the service of notification of a signal waiting time is executable” ¶ 65, see also ¶ 62).
In regards to claim(s) 24, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 12, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Gordon, as applied to claims 12-13 and 15-24 as applied above, in further view of Mahler et al. (20140277986; hereinafter Mahler, already of record).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada in view of Gordon teaches the vehicle system according to claim 12, wherein the signaling unit following the first signaling unit is such that:
However, Yamada in view of Gordon fails to teach the signaling unit following the first signaling unit is detected by the vehicle guidance system after the configuration time or the configuration position; and/or
a decision regarding whether the signaling unit following the first signaling unit should be taken into consideration in the driving function is made by the vehicle guidance system after the configuration time or the configuration position.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mahler teaches the signaling unit following the first signaling unit is detected by the vehicle guidance system after the configuration time or the configuration position; and/or
a decision regarding whether the signaling unit following the first signaling unit should be taken into consideration in the driving function is made by the vehicle guidance system after the configuration time or the configuration position (Mahler: “predict the state of traffic signals several minutes in advance, the navigation system can advantageously use this information to optimize a route and make large-scale adjustments to the directional recommendation” ¶ 32, see also ¶ 21).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the prediction system of Yamada in view of Gordon so that it also includes the element of considering a following signaling unit, as taught by Mahler, in order to improve prediction efficiency (Mahler: ¶ 27, 30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lechner et al. (20230211785) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of vehicle control.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights