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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 8-13 remain pending in the application. The amendment overcomes the double patenting rejection previously set on record.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2019-190651 filed on 10/18/2019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “disable an operation for said second operating part”, and “when said approval operation is not carried out, enable said operation for said second operating part without changing said setting of said driving control part”. These limitations are contradicting since the disabling of the second operating part happens when no operation is carried and the enablement happens when no operation is carried without any other conditions being met. Claim 11 may mend this contradiction by specifying what conditions are met to the not carried out state.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “driving control part” in the last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent from the above claims are rejected for incorporating the deficiency by virtue of their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by
Chao (CN106379310) in view of Watanabe (US20080023241) and Rothwell (US20200130452).
Regarding claim 8, Chao teaches a setting change assist apparatus for a vehicle, comprising:
an operating device configured to be operable by a passenger of the vehicle, said operating device including a first operating part (page 1 second paragraph of summary disclosing the main switch “operating device” that is operated by the driver to change the setting state of the ACC “driving support control” and a main switch “first operating device”); and
a controller configured to: (page 1-2, third paragraph in the summary disclosing a control unit of an ACC “controller” that controls the cruise control “driving support control” of the vehicle according to the settings of the ACC) ;
execute voice recognition processing for recognizing an utterance of said passenger (page 1-2 third paragraph of the summary disclosing a voice recognition that recognizes the utterance of the driver),
determine whether a setting change request for changing the setting state of the driving support control is issued by said utterance (page 1-2 third paragraph of summary disclosing extracting speech characteristics and matches the speech with a library of speech templates and controlling the cruise control based on the result, i.e it is determined that the setting change request is issued by the utterance of the driver),
when it is determined that said setting change request is issued by said utterance, discriminate said setting change request (page 1-2 third paragraph of summary disclosing extracting speech characteristics and matches the speech with a library of speech templates and controlling the cruise control based on the result, i.e it is determined that the setting change request is issued by the utterance of the driver. See also page 4 disclosing the discrimination of different requests),
determine based on said discriminated setting change request that an operation for said first operating part is an approval operation (page 1-2 third paragraph of summary disclosing displaying the text on the display for the driver to confirm the information of the cruise control, see also page 4 middle paragraph disclosing the driver confirms the text on display), and
when said approval operation is carried out, change the setting state of the driving support control in accordance with said discriminated setting change request when said approval operation is carried out (page 1-2 third paragraph of the summary disclosing the driver confirms the setting change of the cruise control by pressing the main switch “operating device” and the engine is controlled by the driver setting).
When said approval operation is not carried out, without changing said setting state of said driving control part (page 1-2 disclosing the driver approves the ACC to change to apply the change otherwise the settings are not changed).
Chao does not teach the second operating part and disable an operation for said second operating part.
Watanabe teaches the second operating part and disable an operation of the second operating part ([0168]-[0172] disclosing disabling operation of the resume button).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Chao to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe of the second operating part and disable an operation of the second operating part in order to avoid unintentional resuming or starting of a cruise control when the intention is to cancel the cruise control as taught by Watanabe [0168]-[0172].
Chao as modified by Watanabe does not teach and enable said operation for said second operating part.
Rothwell teaches and enable said operation for said second operating part ([0063] disclosing when the ACC is turned on, the second operating parts such as the resume button are enabled).
since Chao teaches when an operation is given to start the cruise control and an approval by the driver is issued to start the control, the ACC is started, thus the combination of Chao with Rothwell is obvious to allow control of other operating parts to increase the speed, decrease the speed, resume or cancel the ACC yielding predictable results and providing ease of use for the user and improving the driving experience for the driver which puts the driver at ease knowing they can control function of the cruise control easily and selectively. Also in the case of the no approval is carries out, the combination is obvious to allow the driver to manually select resuming a travel or selecting a speed of the vehicle yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell further teaches the setting change assist apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, said operating device includes a third operating part; and said controller is configured to: when it is determined that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation, disable said second operating part without disabling said first operating part and said third operating part; and
change said setting state of said driving support control in response to a function assigned to said third operating part, when an operation for said third operating part is carried out.
Specifically, Watanabe teaches wherein, said operating device includes a third operating part; and said controller is configured to: when it is determined that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation, disable said second operating part without disabling said first operating part and said third operating part ([0168]-[0174] disclosing the third switch which is a cancel switch wherein the first switch is a main switch and to not disable the cancel switch or the main switch but to disable the set switch or the resume switch); and
change said setting state of said driving support control in response to a function assigned to said third when an operation for said third operating part is carries out ([0168]-[0174] disclosing changing the setting based on the cancel switch, i.e., third switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe wherein, said operating device includes a third operating part; and said controller is configured to: when it is determined that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation, disable said second operating part without disabling said first operating part and said third operating part and change said setting state of said driving support control in response to a function assigned to said third in order to avoid unintentional resuming or starting of a cruise control when the intention is to cancel the cruise control as taught by Watanabe [0168]-[0172].
Regarding claim 14, Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell teaches the setting change assist apparatus according to claim 8, wherein,
Specifically, Rothwell further teaches said operating device includes a third operating part ([0063] disclosing at least a third operating part such as the increasing speed switch); and
said controller is configured to maintain an operation for said third operating part in an available state, when determining that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation ([0063] disclosing when the cruise is turned on, then all the switches are available for control).
The combination and/or substitution of Rothwell buttons with Chao is obvious yielding predictable results, since Rothwell teaches any button is in an available state and Chao teaches the main button is available for the approval, allowing any button to be available is a matter of a design choice and provides redundancy in case of failure of allows driver to select any approval button with ease based on proximity.
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by
Chao (CN106379310) in view of Watanabe (US20080023241) and Rothwell (US20200130452) and Kurahashi (US20190217861) and Pilutti (US2017028917).
Regarding claim 10, Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell teaches the setting change assist apparatus according to claim 9, wherein, and an off request which is a request for changing said operating state of said driving support control from said on state to said off state (Chao summary discloses the requests include switching the ACC to on or off state);
change said setting state of said driving support control from said on state to said off state (summary and last page discloses when the main switch is pressed the setting is turned off when the request is turning off the cruise control).
Watanabe further teaches disable said operation for said second operating part ([0168]-[0172] disclosing disabling operation of the resume button).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Chao to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe of the second operating part and disable an operation of the second operating part in order to avoid unintentional resuming or starting of a cruise control when the intention is to cancel the cruise control as taught by Watanabe [0168]-[0172].
Kurahashi teaches said controller is configured: when said controller determines that said on request is issued by said utterance as said setting change request ([0043] disclosing determining a turn on operation for the adaptive cruise control via voice of a driver).
said setting change request includes an on request which is a request for changing said operating state of said driving support control from an off state to an on state ([0043] disclosing starting the ACC command issued by utterance of a driver),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell to incorporate the teaching of Kurahashi of said controller is configured: when said controller determines that said on request is issued by said utterance as said setting change request in order to improve convenience for the driver and decrease distraction by allowing voice control to start an ACC control.
Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell and Kurahashi does not teach determine that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation for said on request.
Pilutti teaches determine operation for said first operating part is said approval operation for said on request, when said operation of said first operating part is carried out, change said setting state of said driving support control from said off state to said on state ([0030], [0044] disclosing determining an operation to approve activation of the cruise control, i.e., including a first operating part).
When said operation for said third operating part is carried out, change said setting state of said driving support control from said on state to said off state ([0030]-[0034] disclosing the approval can be using the pedal “third operating part to approve a change setting and change settings of the cruise control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell and Kurahashi to incorporate the teaching of Pilutti of determine operation for said first operating part is said approval operation for said on request, when said operation of said first operating part is carried out, change said setting state of said driving support control from said off state to said on state and When said operation for said third operating part is carried out, change said setting state of said driving support control from said on state to said off state in order to confirm a selection of a setting for a cruise control as taught by Pilutti [0044] and for redundancy of controls.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by
Chao (CN106379310) in view of Watanabe (US20080023241) and Rothwell (US20200130452) and Deel (US7559035).
Regarding claim 11, Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell teaches the setting change assist apparatus according to claim 8, Chao as modified by Watanabe and Rothwell does not teach wherein, said controller is configured to determine that said approval operation is not carried out, when an elapsed time of a case where it is determined that said approval operation is not performed since a time point at which it is determined that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation becomes longer than a time threshold.
Deel teaches wherein, said controller is configured to determine that said approval operation is not carried out, when an elapsed time of a case where it is determined that said approval operation is not performed since a time point at which it is determined that said operation for said first operating part is said approval operation becomes longer than a time threshold (col. 3 lines 5-55 disclosing determining that no operation is carried out based on the predetermined time since the operation on the new set “indicative of first operating parts that are enabled” are enabled to be pressed thus to confirm a selection).
The combination of Deel’s predetermined time to determine an action is not carried out is an obvious design choice to determine an operation is not carried by a person which indicates that the person does not intend to approve an operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Watanabe fails to teach the disabling of the second part when the operation of the first part is only operated, the claims only requires the disabling of the second part and does not necessitate that it only be disabled if only one button is operated, Watanabe teaches the claim limitation by disabling a second button when a first button is operated.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added subject matter, Chao teaches the changing the operation state of driving support based on the approval, see summary disclosing the operation of the ACC control based on the approval by a user by a main button, the new reference Rothwell teaches enabling the buttons when an ACC if activated, thus the combination is obvious yielding predictable results, see full rejection above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20200097018 discloses an occupant utterance to change a route.
US20180141569 discloses changing the settings of the vehicle by an occupant of the vehicle other than the driver.
US10525910 discloses disabling touch input when the vehicle is in a manual mode and enabling the touch in an automatic mode.
US20180370543 disclosing disabling of some controls of the vehicle when in an autonomous mode.
US11119479 discloses a driver accepting a change of setting for the vehicle.
US20160368377 discloses approving a function of a cruise control setting change.
US9348488 disclosing enabling and disabling buttons when making changes to programs.
US9497312 discloses not accepting any input on the screen until a certain gesture or an unlock code is input on the screen.
US20150177870 disclosing disabling some part of the screen.
US20180118223 disclosing a yes and no button for approving a change of settings for the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B