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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 09/30/2025. Claims 11-30 were previously pending, of which claims 11-12, 16-19, 23-25, 27, and 29-30 have been amended, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 11-30 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 9-12, filed on 09/30/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the amendment has been fully considered and has rendered the rejection moot. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
5. With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the newly added limitations “…, based on sensor data comprising a curve data record and a specified lateral acceleration limit for the motor vehicle,…” and “…wherein the target speed setpoint is configured to be applied to the driver assistance system to control the steering system and/or the cruise control system during cornering,…” as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Ko and Deng did disclose these limitations as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim(s) 11 – 16, 18 - 23, 25 - 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Pub. No. 102016220406A1 (hereinafter, “Bock”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200339138A1 (hereinafter, “Ko”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200377082A1 (hereinafter, “Nassouri”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20090037062A1 (hereinafter, “Deng”).
7. Regarding claim 11, Bock discloses a method for assisting cornering of a motor vehicle using a driver assistance system (see [0008] & [0015]), comprising: The steering upon the curve when operating a vehicle is guided by a system which evaluates the curve radius and based off of that curve radius helps the user either lower or heighten the longitudinal speed of the vehicle in order to assist with the cornering of the curve.
configuring a first assistance mode for the driver assistance system to perform assisted lateral guidance and longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle (see [0012] – [0013]); Both lateral and longitudinal guidance are active at the same time which can be identified as the first mode.
configuring a second assistance mode for the driver assistance system to perform longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle (see [0033]); Only longitudinal guidance is activated when the speed of the vehicle is too high for lateral assistance to be active. This can be identified as the second mode.
comparing (i),…a first potential cornering speed under the first assistance mode for driving through a curve based on a predetermined lateral acceleration and (ii) a second potential cornering speed under the second assistance mode for driving through the curve; and (see [0031] – [0033] Fig. 2) Compares vmax1 (the first potential cornering speed) and vmax2 (the second potential cornering speed) in order to determine whether lateral assistance (first mode) should be activated or not. If it isn’t activated then longitudinal assistance is only active (second mode).
selecting one of the first or second potential cornering speeds as a target setpoint for driving through the curve using a specified selection routine, wherein the target speed setpoint is configured to be applied by the driver assistance system to control the steering system and/or the cruise control system during cornering, if the comparing determines that the first potential cornering speed is less than the second potential cornering speed (see Fig. 2). Selects either mode 1 (when both lateral and longitudinal assistance are active) or mode 2 (longitudinal assistance is active) depending on whether the vehicle speed is either less than a specific threshold (dv in Fig. 2) or over.
8. Bock further does not explicitly teach …based on sensor data comprising a curve data record and a specified lateral acceleration limit for the motor vehicle,…
Ko teaches …based on sensor data comprising a curve data record… [0083], [0122] Ko teaches on obtaining link information that corresponds to a road and judges the risk of a curve section. This means that data on the section ahead of the vehicle, specifically where the curve is located, is captured by using a sensor for the curve guidance apparatus (10) and measured to assess a degree of risk. Ko also teaches that the curve guidance apparatus (10) can be implemented via hardware, software, or a combination of both. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to edit the mode-switching driver assistance system of Bock with the curve data acquisition and curve risk cornering speed computation of Ko. Both references address the same problem of turning a curve safely and employ compatible hardware/software architectures related to the same issue. The motivation to combine to improve accuracy of speed setpoints and gather curve data in order to more accurately assess and improve safety of the vehicle is explicit in the prior art and would provide a predictable benefit.
Ko does not explicitly teach …and a specified lateral acceleration limit for the motor vehicle,…
However, Nassouri teaches …and a specified lateral acceleration limit for the motor vehicle,… [0050] Nassouri teaches on having a lateral acceleration limit (350) for the vehicle. Implementing this limiter into Bock would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in order to regulate the vehicle to specific guidelines and laws required when surpasses a certain threshold of lateral acceleration. Both Nassouri and Bock have similar architecture so adding a module that limits and monitors the lateral acceleration is a predictable enhancement motivated by safety and comfort.
Ko and Nassouri are analogous art because Ko teaches on a method that can gather data up ahead of the curve using sensors in order to assess a risk of the curve and turn while Nassouri teaches on having a lateral acceleration limit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ko and Nassouri to modify the teachings of Bock to include the teachings of Ko and Nassouri because doing so will increase the safety of the vehicle when the vehicle is driving around a curve.
9. Bock teaches …is configured to be applied by the driver assistance system to control the steering system and/or the cruise control system during cornering,… [0002] Bock teaches on the vehicle being fully automated so therefore, the driver assistance system of Bock will be applied to control the steering system when the determination of a longitudinal and lateral speed are determined in order to maneuver around a corner.
Bock does not explicitly teach selecting one of the first or second potential cornering speeds as a target setpoint for driving through the curve using a specified selection routine, wherein the target speed setpoint…if the comparing determines that the first potential cornering speed is less than the second potential cornering speed.
However, Deng in the same field of endeavor, teaches selecting one of the first or second potential cornering speeds as a target setpoint for driving through the curve using a specified selection routine, wherein the target speed setpoint…if the comparing determines that the first potential cornering speed is less than the second potential cornering speed [0030]. A driver may set the cornering speed of the vehicle to be aggressive or soft. The selection of the speed the driver selects is considered the setpoint since a setpoint is a selected speed the vehicle will use to make a determination on which selected corner speed is used. The driver selecting the cornering speed is the specified selection routine. Deng does have comparison logic [0009]. Although this logic compares the desired speed profile to the actual vehicle speed. It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill to simply change the comparison logic to determining if the speed the driver selected is less than the second potential cornering speed.
Bock and Deng are analogous art because Bock teaches on having a fully autonomous vehicle that will apply a any logic to the driver assistance system inherently and control the steering system due to it being fully in control of itself while Deng teaches on having a driver select a cornering speed of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Deng to modify the teachings of Bock to include the teachings of Deng to adjust the vehicle accordingly to the corner ahead and modify the speed based on the speed of the vehicle in order to ensure proper safeness.
10. Regarding claims 12, 19, and 25 because 12 contains all the limitations of 11, and therefore claim 12 & claim 25 are identical because 25 is a combination of claims 11 and 12, Bock discloses the method of claim 11, wherein
the first assistance mode is selected for driving through the curve if the first potential cornering speed is selected as a target speed setpoint, or
the first assistance mode is selected for driving through the curve if the second potential cornering speed is selected as the target speed setpoint, and subsequently selecting the second assistance mode when a current lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle exceeds the predetermined lateral acceleration (see Fig. 2). Bock discloses that the first assistance mode is selected for driving through the curve if the first potential cornering speed is selected as a setpoint, because Bock teaches a first mode (when both lateral and longitudinal guidance are active) is selected when the cornering speed (vmax) is below a certain threshold (dv).
11. Regarding claims 13, 20, and 26, Bock does not explicitly teach the method of claim 11, wherein the first potential cornering speed is defined as a function of a first specified curve data record.
Nassouri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first potential cornering speed is defined as a function of a first specified curve data record (see [0052] - [0053]); The Advanced Driver-Assistance System (ADAS) calculates the corner speed, wheel angle, lateral acceleration, and then proceeds to store that cornering speed into the memory which is the equivalent to defining the speed as a specified curve data record due to the fact that it is storing that cornering speed data to identify a preferred setting for the driver when it comes to driver comfort.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bock with the teachings of Nassouri, to more effectively be able to recall previous corner speeds for future similar corner turns (see [0053]).
12. In regards to claim 14, 21, and 27, Bock teaches limitation the method of claim 13, wherein the second potential cornering speed… because the second potential cornering speed is when the vehicle is over a specific threshold which activates only longitudinal guidance to be active.
Bock does not appear to explicitly recite limitation …is defined as a function of a second specified curve data record, which is different from the first curve data record, and the current driving speed.
However, Nassouri explicitly recites limitation is defined as a function of a second specified curve data record, which is different from the first curve data record, and the current driving speed (see [0053]) because it stores cornering speeds into memory. Nassouri also recites customizing to a driver’s preference because drivers may feel uncomfortable with certain speeds around curves (see [0051]), therefore it would have been obvious to store different driver-specific cornering behavior profiles based on speed in order to maintain the driver’s comfort (see [0051]) and also for safety (see [0050]).
Bock and Nassouri are analogous art because if we were to incorporate both assistance modes that Bock teaches with Nassouri which can store cornering speeds into memory, then we will get an equivalent that can store a first and second potential cornering speed in order to differentiate both potential cornering speeds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bock and Nassouri to modify the teachings of Bock to include the teachings of Nassouri because having different curve data records for specific cornering speeds will help ease and comfort the driver as they turn a corner due to the vehicle already knowing how to adjust for turning the corner at that specific speed.
13. Regarding claim 15, 22, and 28, Bock discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the selection routine is performed only if the comparing determines that the first potential cornering speed deviates from the second potential cornering speed by at least a predetermined limit value (see [0031] – [0033]). A predetermined limit value is set as dv (Fig. 2). If both the first potential corner speed (vmax 1) and the second potential corner speed (vmax2) both deviate from each other by a certain amount and is less than or greater than dv, than a selection is made based off of that result. This is the selection routine.
16. Regarding claim 16, 23, and 29, Bock does not explicitly teach the method of claim 11, wherein a target speed setpoint is selected as the selection routine as a function of one of:
a preset driving profile mode of the motor vehicle,
a shift knob position representing a respective gear box mode for the motor vehicle,
a function of a detected occupant state of an occupant of the motor vehicle, or
a detected state of attention of a driver of the motor vehicle, or
detected weather data in the surroundings of the motor vehicle.
Nassouri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein a target speed setpoint is selected as the selection routine as a function of one of:
a preset driving profile mode of the motor vehicle (see [0050] – [0054]),
a shift knob position representing a respective gear box mode for the motor vehicle,
a function of a detected occupant state of an occupant of the motor vehicle, or
a detected state of attention of a driver of the motor vehicle, or
detected weather data in the surroundings of the motor vehicle. Nassouri teaches that it stores cornering speeds into memory. Nassouri also recites customizing to a driver’s preference because drivers may feel uncomfortable with certain speeds around curves (see [0051]), therefore it would have been obvious to store different driver-specific cornering behavior profiles based on speed in order to maintain the driver’s comfort (see [0051]) and also for safety (see [0050]). This would constitute as setting a preset driving profile mode of a vehicle due to the nature of storing cornering speeds into memory to customize to a driver’s specific driving style.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Bock with the teachings of Nassouri, to easier be able to select a setpoint based off a preset driving profile of the vehicle to help the driver in terms of comfort due as they turn through a curve based on that driver’s specific driving style (see [0052]).
14. Regarding claim 18 specifically, Bock teaches a system for assisting cornering of a motor vehicle using a driver assistance system (see [0008] & [0015]), comprising: The steering upon the curve when operating a vehicle is guided by a system which evaluates the curve radius and based off of that curve radius helps the user either lower or heighten the longitudinal speed of the vehicle in order to assist with the cornering of the curve.
a memory device; and Bock teaches a control unit which runs tons of calculations and controls for the system that operates the vehicle’s driving and also that some speeds can be determined and stored in a corresponding map. In order for specific things to be stored, a memory device has to inherently exist in the system.
a driver assistance system, operatively coupled to the memory device, the driver assistance system being configured to: The driver assistance system coupled to a memory device is inherent because in order for a driver assistance system to work, a chip with some type of memory has to be implemented.
15. Claim(s) 17, 24, & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Pub. No. 102016220406A1 (hereinafter, “Bock”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200339138A1 (hereinafter, “Ko”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200377082A1 (hereinafter, “Nassouri”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20090037062A1 (hereinafter, “Deng”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20200387167A1 (hereinafter, “Sujan”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 11059484B2 (hereinafter, “Fujiwara”), and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 9189897B1 (hereinafter, “Stenneth”).
16. Regarding claims 17, 24, and 30, Sujan teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the target speed setpoint is selected as the selection routine as a function of detected swarm data of a motor vehicle swarm,… (see [0059]) Sujan teaches determining a speed setpoint for a platoon of vehicles. It may be for a cruise control setting, the capability of determining a setpoint and recording that speed setpoint is what is pertinent.
Sujan does not appear to explicitly recite …the swarm data comprising an average cornering speed of the motor vehicle swarm for passing through the curve.
However, Fujiwara explicitly recites …the swarm data comprising an average cornering speed of the motor vehicle swarm... (see [Col. 9] Row 41 – 52 Fig. 3) because once the average vehicle speed from vehicle 30 is acquired, the search unit (22) will then proceed to search for another vehicle group (vehicle group can be considered a swam or platoon of vehicles) that is traveling at that average vehicle speed. It is inherent that an average speed of a vehicle swarm has to be calculated from a nearby vehicle group in order to compare both averages together to check to see if that vehicle group average speed is close enough to the average vehicle speed (30).
The combination of Sujan and Fujiwara does not appear to explicitly disclose …for passing through the curve.
However, Stenneth explicitly recites …for passing through the curve (see Fig. 10). Because it teaches about a platoon of vehicles (see [Col. 5] Row 20 – 32) capable of taking sharp turns (see [Col. 11] Row 33 – 58).
The combination of Sujan and Fujiwara along with Stenneth are analogous art because Sujan teaches on a platoon of vehicles being able to set a setpoint speed for the platoon of vehicles. Fujiwara can calculate an average speed of a group of vehicles and Stenneth can operate a group of vehicles as they navigate through a curve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Sujan, Fujiwara, and Stenneth, to modify the teachings of the combination of Sujan and Fujiwara to include the teachings of Stenneth to have a swarm of vehicles also be able to navigate through a curve more efficiently and safely.
Conclusion
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights