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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2026 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (US-20190022347-A1), herein after will be referred to as Wan, in view of Drown et al. (US 20180334167 A1), herein after will be referred to as Drown, and in view of Das et al. (US 20170259795 A1), herein after will be referred to as Das.
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by WanWan teaches:
A vehicle driving control method comprising:
See at least: "A method of motion sickness mitigation in a vehicle includes the processor receiving a data input signal..." ([0011])
Rationale: A method of motion sickness mitigation in a vehicle is a vehicle driving control method comprising the described steps.
when a motion sickness prevention mode is entered
See at least: "The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a vehicle performance signal ... to initiate motion sickness mitigation is the act of entering a motion sickness prevention mode.
based on user-configured information
See at least: "The occupant profile includes ... preferences of the occupant..." ([0004])
Rationale: An occupant profile containing preferences of the occupant is information configured by or for the user, i.e., user-configured information.
about whether to activate the motion sickness prevention mode
See at least: "a determination is made as to whether the occupant accepts the selected driving profile." ([0049])
Rationale: The occupant's acceptance of a driving profile is a user-configured input that governs whether a specific mitigation regimen is activated, corresponding to information about whether to activate the motion sickness prevention mode.
during driving of the vehicle
See at least: "receiving ... traffic information for an upcoming trip of the vehicle on a route." ([0004])
Rationale: Receiving traffic information for an upcoming trip implies operation during driving of the vehicle.
and controlling,
See at least: "delivering a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a vehicle performance signal to implement mitigation is an act of controlling the vehicle.
the vehicle
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal varies operation of ... actuators of the vehicle..." ([0004])
Rationale: The signal acts upon components of the vehicle, therefore it controls the vehicle.
or to reduce a feeling of acceleration or deceleration
See at least: "A vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation, is delivered by the processor to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: The express purpose of the control signal is motion sickness mitigation, which inherently requires reducing a feeling of acceleration or deceleration to be effective.
experienced by a passenger in the vehicle
See at least: "The occupant profile includes a biometric condition of an occupant, preferences of the occupant and historical travel information of the occupant in the vehicle." ([0004])
Rationale: The mitigation is for an occupant, who is a passenger in the vehicle.
and the feeling of acceleration or deceleration
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal... to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: As above, the stated objective of the initiated control is motion sickness mitigation, which targets the feeling of acceleration or deceleration.
experienced by the passenger in the vehicle is reduced
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal... to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: Initiating motion sickness mitigation aims to reduce the symptoms of motion sickness, which include the feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by the passenger in the vehicle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by WanWan does not explicitly teach:
comparing a vehicle’s speed
with a predetermined first reference speed
based on a result
of the comparison
with the first reference speed,
to reduce a change
in longitudinal acceleration
of the vehicle
based on whether an obstacle is recognized;
wherein the controlling further comprises controlling the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode,
in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed
as a result of the comparison,
and controlling,
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed,
the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode
in which at least one of an obstacle in front of the vehicle
and the driving function
based on target vehicle speed tracking
is active
is a mode release condition,
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
such that a change in the vehicle speed
during the vehicle’s acceleration
in the low-speed driving mode
does not exceed a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
comparing a vehicle’s speed
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed..." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites compares the host vehicle speed, which is comparing a vehicle’s speed.
with a predetermined first reference speed
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed." ([0022])
Rationale: The predetermined minimum speed is the predetermined first reference speed used in the comparison.
based on a result
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46. If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The subsequent control steps are explicitly taken based on a result of the speed comparison.
of the comparison
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46. If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The conditional branches are triggered by the outcome of the comparison.
with the first reference speed,
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed." ([0022])
Rationale: The comparison is made with the predetermined minimum speed, which is the first reference speed.
based on whether an obstacle is recognized
See at least: "the radar controller 14 receives a signal indicative of a detected target object" ([0018])
Rationale: Receiving a signal for a detected target object corresponds to control being based on whether an obstacle is recognized.
wherein the controlling further comprises controlling the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode,
See at least: "In step 50, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a following distance mode." ([0023])
Rationale: Setting the ACC 10 in a following distance mode is an act of controlling the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode, as this mode is entered when speed is low.
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The condition for entering the following distance mode is when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the predetermined minimum speed (first reference speed).
as a result of the comparison,
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: Proceeding to step 50 occurs as a result of the comparison.
and controlling,
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Setting the ACC 10 in a time gap mode is an act of controlling the vehicle.
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed,
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46." ([0022])
Rationale: This is the conditional branch when the vehicle speed exceeds the predetermined minimum speed (first reference speed).
the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Setting the ACC 10 in a time gap mode is controlling the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode, as this mode is active when speed is above the minimum threshold.
in which at least one of an obstacle in front of the vehicle
See at least: "If a target vehicle is detected, the method 40 goes to step 46." ([0020])
Rationale: The condition If a target vehicle is detected corresponds to an obstacle in front of the vehicle being present.
and the driving function
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to one or more of the braking system controller 12, the engine retarder 28 and the engine controller 30 to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The ACC 10 performing this task is the driving function.
based on target vehicle speed tracking
See at least: "to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: Maintaining a preset time gap behind a target vehicle requires tracking the target vehicle's speed, so the function is based on target vehicle speed tracking.
is active
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages..." ([0016])
Rationale: The ACC transmitting messages to maintain a gap indicates the function is active.
is a mode release condition,
See at least: "If the target vehicle has moved out of range of the host vehicle ... the radar controller 14 will return the host vehicle to the regular cruise control mode..." ([0027])
Rationale: The target vehicle moving out of range causes the system to exit the current mode, making it a mode release condition.
Motivation to Combine Wan and Drown
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan and Drown before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit speed-threshold comparison logic, obstacle-responsive control, and distinct low-speed and high-speed driving modes into Wan’s motion sickness prevention method. Both references operate in the field of vehicle longitudinal control. Wan provides the foundational objective of mitigating passenger motion sickness via configurable vehicle control during driving. Drown provides a predictable, real-world architecture for a vehicle control system that makes operational mode decisions based on vehicle speed and obstacle detection. Combining these teachings would yield a more capable and context-aware motion sickness prevention system that adapts its control strategy based on speed and traffic conditions—a predictable goal for enhancing passenger comfort and system intelligence.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and DrownAfter combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
to reduce a change
in longitudinal acceleration
of the vehicle
in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
such that a change in the vehicle speed
during the vehicle’s acceleration
in the low-speed driving mode
does not exceed a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Disclosure by DasDas teaches:
to reduce a change
See at least: "the disclosed exemplary embodiment is a method... which can accelerate the motor vehicle... all the movement processes of the motor vehicle being essentially jerk limited..." ([0019])
Rationale: Jerk limiting directly corresponds to reducing a change in acceleration over time.
in longitudinal acceleration
See at least: "The jerk value is in turn determined in a driving mode in which... the motor vehicle is adjusted... taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The control addresses vehicle longitudinal acceleration, which is longitudinal acceleration.
of the vehicle
See at least: "the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The acceleration is that of the vehicle.
in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
See at least: "The jerk value is in turn determined in a driving mode in which... the motor vehicle is adjusted... taking into account ... at least one predetermined driving mode jerk absolute value which limits the jerk." (Abstract)
Rationale: A driving mode that uses a jerk absolute value that limits the jerk is a mode in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced.
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
See at least: "A method for the automated control of the longitudinal movement of a motor vehicle..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The method involves control of the vehicle.
such that a change in the vehicle speed
See at least: "starting from a vehicle actual longitudinal speed and a vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration, the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Adjusting to a target speed involves managing a change in the vehicle speed.
during the vehicle’s acceleration
See at least: "an automated positive acceleration process in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle..." (Abstract)
Rationale: A positive acceleration process is the vehicle’s acceleration.
in the low-speed driving mode
See at least: "in a driving mode in which... the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The driving mode described by Das can be applied within the low-speed driving mode context established by Drown.
does not exceed a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
See at least: "taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Taking into account a predetermined maximum ... vehicle longitudinal acceleration means controlling the vehicle to ensure its acceleration does not exceed that limit, which is a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s explicit techniques for reducing changes in longitudinal acceleration (jerk limiting) and enforcing a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction to the speed-based and obstacle-responsive driving mode framework established by combining Wan and Drown. Das provides a known, predictable method for achieving comfortable longitudinal dynamics—the core comfort objective of Wan's motion sickness mitigation. Integrating Das's comfort-control methodology, including its acceleration limits, into the low-speed driving mode (and by extension, the overall control structure) defined by Drown's speed-threshold logic would yield the predictable result of a motion sickness prevention method that smooths vehicle movements and caps acceleration for passenger comfort. After combining the teachings of Wan, Drown, and Das, all elements of Claim 1 are either explicitly taught or rendered obvious. The combination provides a complete method for controlling a vehicle to prevent motion sickness by comparing speed to a reference, entering different driving modes based on the result and obstacle recognition, and within those modes, implementing control actions (informed by Das) to reduce changes in acceleration and the passenger's feeling of acceleration/deceleration.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan teaches:
when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered;
See at least: “The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation.” ([0011])
Rationale: Wan’s “initiate motion sickness mitigation” corresponds to entering the motion sickness prevention mode.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein the comparing
comprises: determining
whether a driving function
based on target vehicle speed tracking
is active,
when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered; (as to the “determining whether … is active” being performed at mode entry)
and comparing the vehicle’s speed
with the first reference speed
when the driving function is active.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
wherein the comparing
See at least: “In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed.” ([0022])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites “compares,” corresponding to wherein the comparing.
comprises: determining
See at least: “In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle.” ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites “determine,” corresponding to comprises: determining.
whether a driving function
See at least: “In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode.” ([0020])
Rationale: Setting “the ACC 10” into an operating mode corresponds to whether a driving function is engaged/operative.
based on target vehicle speed tracking
See at least: “When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages … to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap … behind the target vehicle.” ([0016])
Rationale: Maintaining the host vehicle “behind the target vehicle” at a “preset time gap” corresponds to a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking because maintaining a time gap necessarily uses the target vehicle’s motion for longitudinal control.
is active,
See at least: “When the ACC 10 is normally enabled, a time gap mode is the default mode when a target vehicle is detected.” ([0020])
Rationale: Drown’s “time gap mode is the default mode” when the ACC is enabled and a target is detected corresponds to the driving function is active.
and comparing the vehicle’s speed
See at least: “The radar controller 14 receives the speed of the host vehicle … In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed …” ([0022])
Rationale: Receiving and comparing “the speed of the host vehicle” corresponds to and comparing the vehicle’s speed.
with the first reference speed
See at least: “In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed.” ([0022])
Rationale: Drown’s “predetermined minimum speed” corresponds to the first reference speed.
when the driving function is active.
See at least: “In step 42, the driver of the host vehicle enables the ACC 10 to maintain a set speed …” ([0019]); “In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode.” ([0020]); “In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed.” ([0022])
Rationale: Drown’s speed comparison in step 48 is performed within the ACC operating sequence after the ACC is enabled and set into time gap mode, corresponding to comparing the vehicle’s speed with the first reference speed when the driving function is active.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to implement the Claim 2 “determining whether a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active” and “comparing the vehicle’s speed with the first reference speed when the driving function is active” as part of the combined Claim 1 motion-sickness mitigation control, because Wan expressly initiates motion sickness mitigation via vehicle performance control during driving, Drown provides a compatible ACC framework that determines target-tracking engagement and performs speed-threshold comparisons while ACC is enabled, and Das provides complementary longitudinal comfort constraints that are implemented within such longitudinal control frameworks without technical incompatibility, yielding the predictable result of conditioning mitigation behavior on (i) target-tracking activation status and (ii) speed-threshold comparison during active longitudinal control.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan teaches:
comprising, before the controlling, determining, when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered,
See at least: "The process 300 may be initiated ... when the mitigation module 138 receives the mitigate signal 152 or 162 ." ([0058]); "Proceeding to step 206 , a driving profile 140 is selected by the pre - trip prediction module 132 ..." ([0049]); "... the mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 ..." ([0058])
Rationale: Wan teaches that when mitigation is initiated upon receipt of the “mitigate signal” (mode entry), a driving profile is selected (a determination step) and the vehicle is then controlled via vehicle performance signal 174 to actuators, such that the determination occurs when the mode is entered and before the controlling.
one preconfigured detailed setting mode
See at least: "The driving profile 140 is an option selected from a list of preprogrammed commands for how the vehicle 20 will perform ..." ([0049])
Rationale: Wan’s “driving profile 140” is a preprogrammed option governing vehicle performance, corresponding to one preconfigured detailed setting mode.
from among multiple detailed setting modes
See at least: "... selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140 from available options stored in the storage device 118 ." ([0058])
Rationale: Selecting a driving profile “from available options” corresponds to selecting one from among multiple detailed setting modes.
that have different degrees of control intervention
See at least: "... selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140 from available options stored in the storage device 118 ." ([0058]); "The level of modification may be selected commensurate with the calculated MSV value ..." ([0058])
Rationale: Wan expressly distinguishes “less aggressive” profiles and selecting a “level of modification,” evidencing different degrees of control intervention.
based on entering the motion sickness prevention mode;
See at least: "The process 300 may be initiated ... when the mitigation module 138 receives the mitigate signal 152 or 162 . Proceeding to step 304 , the process 300 adjusts vehicle performance ..." ([0058])
Rationale: Initiating the process upon receipt of the mitigate signal and then adjusting vehicle performance corresponds to selecting/using the setting based on entering the motion sickness prevention mode.
and controlling the vehicle
See at least:"... the mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 ..." ([0058])
Rationale: Providing a signal to “control the actuator system” corresponds to controlling the vehicle.
based on the one determined detailed setting mode.
See at least: "... selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140 ... The level of modification may be selected ... the mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 ..." ([0058])
Rationale: Wan teaches that mitigation control is accomplished by selecting a driving profile/level of modification and implementing it via actuator control signals, corresponding to controlling based on the one determined detailed setting mode.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach the following claim limitation:
based on the comparison result
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
based on the comparison result
See at least: "[ 0022 ] ... In step 48 , the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed ... If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed ... If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed ..." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown explicitly selects subsequent control behavior depending on the outcome of the speed comparison, corresponding to acting based on the comparison result.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to implement Wan’s selection of a driving profile/level of modification upon mitigation initiation together with Drown’s explicit speed-comparison-result-dependent branching and Das’s longitudinal comfort constraint techniques already applied in Claim 1, because these teachings are technically compatible within longitudinal vehicle control systems and would predictably yield a mitigation control approach that selects a preconfigured intervention setting at mode entry and then controls the vehicle conditioned on the speed comparison result while achieving comfort-oriented vehicle dynamics.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan teaches:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
See at least: "The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation, wherein the vehicle performance signal varies operation of... the accelerator actuator or the brake actuator..." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a signal to vary actuator operation is an act of controlling , and this is described as part of the method's process, corresponding to wherein the controlling further comprises.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach:
determining whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle
in case that the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
and controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
when the obstacle is not present.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
determining whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites determine if a target vehicle is in front , which corresponds to determining whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle.
in case that the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown's comparison and conditional action based on the host vehicle speed being greater than the predetermined minimum speed corresponds to in case that the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed.
and controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46. In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0022]) Also, "In step 42, the driver of the host vehicle enables the ACC 10 to maintain a set speed..." ([0019])
Rationale: Drown teaches that when the speed is above the minimum threshold, the system operates in a time gap mode or maintains a set speed , which are modes of longitudinal control at higher speeds, corresponding to controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode.
when the obstacle is not present.
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle. If no target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle, the method 40 returns to step 42." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly teaches the conditional branch for If no target vehicle is in front , which corresponds to when the obstacle is not present and results in returning to the set speed / high-speed control mode.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for determining whether there is an obstacle in front and conditioning the high-speed driving mode on both the speed comparison result and the absence of an obstacle into the combined vehicle control framework of Claim 1 (established by Wan, Drown, and Das). Drown provides a predictable and compatible technique from the field of adaptive cruise control for engaging different longitudinal control modes based on real-time sensor data (obstacle presence) and vehicle speed, which would be a logical subsystem to integrate within Wan’s broader motion sickness mitigation control system for efficient and context-aware vehicle operation, while Das's teachings on longitudinal comfort constraints remain applicable to the control actions performed.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 6, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining comprises: determining whether the obstacle is present
within a predetermined reference distance from the vehicle
by using a sensor unit provided in the vehicle.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
wherein the determining comprises: determining whether the obstacle is present
See at least: "The radar controller 14 transmits and receives radar signals, which are electromagnetic waves used to detect an object's presence, longitudinal distance, lateral distance, speed and direction with respect to the host vehicle." ([0008])
Rationale: Drown expressly describes using radar to detect an object's presence , which corresponds to determining whether the obstacle is present.
within a predetermined reference distance from the vehicle
See at least: "When the calculated time to an object is below a predetermined time to an object, a following alert is transmitted..." ([0010])
Rationale: Drown describes evaluating a predetermined time to an object, which inherently defines a predetermined reference distance based on vehicle speed, corresponding to assessing obstacle presence within such a reference distance.
by using a sensor unit provided in the vehicle.
See at least: "The ACC 10 includes a radar controller 14. The radar controller 14 transmits and receives radar signals, which are electromagnetic waves used to detect an object's presence, longitudinal distance..." ([0008]); "The ACC 10 includes at least one camera controller 16. The camera controller 16 uses video signals to detect an object's presence, size, longitudinal distance and lateral distance..." ([0011])
Rationale: Drown expressly discloses using a radar controller and a camera controller equipped in the vehicle to detect objects, corresponding to by using a sensor unit provided in the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit teaching of determining whether an obstacle is present within a predetermined reference distance using vehicle-mounted sensor units (radar, camera) into the combined vehicle control framework established by Wan, Drown, and Das. Drown’s sensor-based obstacle detection and ranging is a fundamental, predictable, and compatible technique in the field of vehicle automation and longitudinal control, and integrating this specific capability would directly enable the obstacle-dependent control logic defined in the parent claims, thereby creating a more comprehensive and context-aware vehicle control system for safety and comfort.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 6, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the controlling comprises controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
when the driving function is active in case that the obstacle is present.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
wherein the controlling comprises controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown's time gap mode is a longitudinal control mode engaged during higher-speed operation when following a target, corresponding to controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode.
when the driving function is active
See at least: "In step 42, the driver of the host vehicle enables the ACC 10 to maintain a set speed..." ([0019])
Rationale: Enabling the ACC 10 corresponds to the driving function (adaptive cruise control) being active.
in case that the obstacle is present.
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle. If a target vehicle is detected, the method 40 goes to step 46." ([0020])
Rationale: The condition If a target vehicle is detected corresponds to in case that the obstacle is present, which triggers entry into the time gap mode.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for controlling the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode when the driving function is active specifically in case that the obstacle is present into the combined vehicle control framework of Claim 6. Drown provides a predictable and directly applicable technique from adaptive cruise control where the presence of a target vehicle (obstacle) triggers a specific, active longitudinal control mode (time gap mode). Integrating this established obstacle-responsive control logic into Wan's broader mitigation system would result in a more capable and context-aware vehicle control system, a predictable goal in the art.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan teaches:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
See at least: "The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation, wherein the vehicle performance signal varies operation of... the accelerator actuator or the brake actuator..." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a signal to vary actuator operation is an act of controlling , and this is described as part of the method's process, corresponding to wherein the controlling further comprises.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach:
determining whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
and controlling the vehicle in a first high-speed driving mode,
which is based on an acceleration torque profile
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration,
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
and controlling the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode,
which is based on a deceleration torque profile
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration,
when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
determining whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to one or more of the braking system controller 12, the engine retarder 28 and the engine controller 30 to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The system must decide whether to send messages to the engine controller (to accelerate) or to the braking system/retarder (to decelerate) to maintain the gap, which inherently requires determining whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating.
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown's comparison and conditional action based on the host vehicle speed being greater than the predetermined minimum speed corresponds to when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed.
and controlling the vehicle in a first high-speed driving mode,
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown's time gap mode is a specific longitudinal control mode engaged when the speed is above the minimum threshold and a target is present, corresponding to a first high-speed driving mode.
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
See at least: "The engine controller 30 ... receives acceleration messages and propels the vehicle in response." ([0016])
Rationale: The engine controller propelling the vehicle in response to acceleration messages corresponds to controlling the vehicle when the vehicle is accelerating as determined by the system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and Drown
After combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
which is based on an acceleration torque profile
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration,
and controlling the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode,
which is based on a deceleration torque profile
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration,
when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by Das
Das teaches:
which is based on an acceleration torque profile
See at least: "The acceleration variable is determined based on a jerk value and limited in terms of absolute value." (Abstract); "The jerk value is in turn determined in a driving mode in which, starting from a vehicle actual longitudinal speed and a vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration, the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Das teaches controlling longitudinal motion using a jerk-limited acceleration variable (i.e., shaping acceleration over time for comfort). A PHOSITA would implement such jerk-limited longitudinal acceleration/deceleration profiles in a drive-by-wire vehicle by issuing time-varying propulsion-torque and/or brake-torque requests, since propulsion/brake torque is the standard actuator-level mechanism for producing longitudinal acceleration/deceleration. Thus, under BRI, Das renders obvious control “based on an acceleration torque profile” (and correspondingly a deceleration torque profile).
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration,
See at least: "The jerk value 10, 17 is determined on the basis of the driving mode 8 or the deceleration mode 9 and the acceleration variable 11... is determined from the jerk value 10, 17. Before determination of the acceleration variable 11 from the jerk value 10, 17... the jerk value 10, 17 is subjected, in the exemplary embodiment, to a low-pass filtering 18 to smooth discontinuities... and makes transitions in the profile of the acceleration variable 11 take place gently and softly..." ([0031])
Rationale: Smoothing the jerk and making acceleration transitions gently and softly is explicitly done to improve comfort, directly corresponding to reducing the passenger's feeling of acceleration.
and controlling the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode,
See at least: "In the deceleration mode 9, a deceleration mode jerk value 17 that represents a change over time in the acceleration variable 11 is determined." ([0028])
Rationale: Das explicitly defines a distinct deceleration mode for controlling the vehicle, corresponding to a second high-speed driving mode.
which is based on a deceleration torque profile
See at least: "The deceleration mode 9 calculates a trapezoidal or a wedge-shaped profile for the vehicle longitudinal deceleration which is necessary during the stopping process of the motor vehicle..." ([0030])
Rationale: A trapezoidal/wedge-shaped deceleration profile is a time-shaped command for reducing vehicle speed in a controlled manner for comfort. A PHOSITA would implement such a commanded longitudinal deceleration profile in a drive-by-wire braking system by issuing time-varying braking actuation requests (e.g., brake torque/pressure requests), because braking torque is the standard actuator-level mechanism that produces longitudinal deceleration. Thus, under BRI, Das renders obvious control “based on a deceleration torque profile.”.
generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration,
See at least: "The jerk value 17 in the deceleration operating mode 9 is such that the motor vehicle can be, starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4, decelerated gently and comfortably to the stationary state..." ([0028])
Rationale: The express purpose of the deceleration mode is to achieve gentle and comfortable deceleration, which is synonymous with reducing the passenger's feeling of deceleration.
when the vehicle is decelerating.
See at least: "The jerk value 17 in the deceleration operating mode 9 is such that the motor vehicle can be, starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4, decelerated gently and comfortably to the stationary state..." ([0028])
Rationale: Das's deceleration mode is explicitly applied when the vehicle is to be decelerated.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s explicit techniques for generating acceleration and deceleration torque profiles designed for passenger comfort into the speed-thresholded, mode-based control framework established by Wan and Drown. Das provides a known, predictable, and directly applicable method for achieving comfortable longitudinal dynamics—the core objective of Wan’s motion sickness mitigation. Wan teaches motion-sickness mitigation by varying accelerator and brake actuator operation to reduce occupant discomfort. Drown teaches high-speed longitudinal following (speed above a predetermined threshold) that necessarily alternates propulsion and braking based on target tracking, and Das teaches jerk-limited acceleration/deceleration profiles for comfortable motion. It would have been obvious to determine whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating in the high-speed regime and apply corresponding comfort-shaped longitudinal actuation profiles (acceleration vs deceleration) to reduce passenger-perceived acceleration/deceleration; under BRI, the recited “torque profiles” read on the time-varying propulsion/braking actuation commands implementing Das’s profiles via Wan’s accelerator/brake actuators.
Regarding Claim 10,
Disclosure by WanWan discloses:
A vehicle control device comprising:
See at least: "a controller including a processor..." ([0004])
Rationale: Wan explicitly discloses a controller with a processor , which constitutes a vehicle control device.
a controller
See at least: "a controller including a processor..." ([0004])
Rationale: Wan expressly recites a controller.
configured to
See at least: "the processor configured to: receive an occupant profile... calculate... and deliver a vehicle performance signal..." ([0004])
Rationale: The description of the processor's capabilities uses the language configured to.
control
See at least: "The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a vehicle performance signal to implement mitigation constitutes an act of control.
the vehicle
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal varies operation of a steering actuator, an acceleration actuator, and/or a brake actuator of the vehicle..." ([0004])
Rationale: The actuators being controlled are part of the vehicle.
to reduce a feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by a passenger in the vehicle
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal... to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: The express purpose of the control signal is motion sickness mitigation, which inherently requires reducing a feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by a passenger to be effective.
when a motion sickness prevention mode is entered
See at least: "A vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation, is delivered by the processor to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: Initiating motion sickness mitigation corresponds to entering a motion sickness prevention mode.
based on user-configured information
See at least: "The occupant profile includes... preferences of the occupant..." ([0004])
Rationale: The occupant profile containing preferences is information configured by or for the user.
about whether to activate the motion sickness prevention mode
See at least: "a determination is made as to whether the occupant accepts the selected driving profile." ([0049])
Rationale: The occupant's acceptance of a driving profile is a user-configured input that governs whether a specific mitigation regimen (the prevention mode) is activated.
during driving of the vehicle;
See at least: "receiving... traffic information for an upcoming trip of the vehicle on a route." ([0004])
Rationale: Receiving traffic for an upcoming trip implies operation during driving of the vehicle.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
a determination unit
compare a vehicle's speed
with a predetermined first reference speed
based on a result of the comparison with the first reference speed performed by the determination unit,
to reduce a change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle
or based on whether an obstacle is recognized;
wherein the controller is further configured to control the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode,
in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed
as a result of the comparison by the determination unit,
and to control,
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed,
the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode
in which at least one of an obstacle in front of the vehicle and the driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active
is a mode release condition,
and the feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by the passenger in the vehicle is reduced;
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
such that a change in the vehicle speed
during the vehicle's acceleration
in the low-speed driving mode
does not exceed
a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
a determination unit
See at least: "a radar controller 14... The radar controller 14 includes a processor with control logic 20..." ([0008])
Rationale: The radar controller or its control logic performs comparative and decision-making functions, corresponding to a determination unit.
compare a vehicle's speed
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed..." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites compares the host vehicle speed.
with a predetermined first reference speed
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed." ([0022])
Rationale: The predetermined minimum speed is the predetermined first reference speed used in the comparison.
based on a result of the comparison with the first reference speed performed by the determination unit,
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46. If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The subsequent control steps are explicitly taken based on a result of the comparison of speed to the predetermined minimum.
based on whether an obstacle is recognized;
See at least: "the radar controller 14 receives a signal indicative of a detected target object" ([0018]) and "determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: Receiving a signal for a detected target object or determining if a target vehicle is present corresponds to obstacle recognition as a basis for control.
wherein the controller is further configured to control the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode,
See at least: "the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a following distance mode." ([0023])
Rationale: Setting the system into a following distance mode is a form of controlling the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode.
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed..." ([0022])
Rationale: The condition for entering the following distance mode is when speed is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed.
as a result of the comparison by the determination unit,
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The decision to proceed to step 50 (setting the following distance mode) is made as a result of the comparison.
and to control,
See at least: "the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Setting the ACC 10 in a mode is an act of control.
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed,
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed..." ([0022])
Rationale: This is the conditional branch where vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed.
the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode
See at least: "the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: The time gap mode is a longitudinal control mode engaged at higher speeds, corresponding to a high-speed driving mode.
in which at least one of an obstacle in front of the vehicle and the driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to... maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The condition target vehicle is detected corresponds to an obstacle in front, and maintaining a preset time gap is a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking that is active.
is a mode release condition,
See at least: "If the target vehicle has moved out of range of the host vehicle... the radar controller 14 will return the host vehicle to the regular cruise control mode..." ([0027])
Rationale: The target vehicle moving out of range (obstacle no longer present) causes the system to return to a different mode, making obstacle absence a mode release condition.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and DrownAfter combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
to reduce a change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle
or in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
and the feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by the passenger in the vehicle is reduced;
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
such that a change in the vehicle speed
during the vehicle's acceleration
in the low-speed driving mode
does not exceed
a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Disclosure by DasDas teaches:
to reduce a change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle
See at least: "the disclosed exemplary embodiment is a method... which can accelerate the motor vehicle... all the movement processes of the motor vehicle being essentially jerk limited..." ([0019])
Rationale: Jerk is the rate of change of acceleration. Therefore, jerk limiting directly corresponds to reducing a change in longitudinal acceleration.
or in which the change in longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is reduced,
See at least: "taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Applying a predetermined maximum acceleration inherently reduces the potential for larger changes in longitudinal acceleration. The claim uses "or" to provide alternative control objectives. Das provides the teaching for one objective.
and the feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by the passenger in the vehicle is reduced;
See at least: "permits at any time... essentially jerk-free acceleration and deceleration... which is therefore perceived as comfortable by the occupants..." ([0056])
Rationale: Essentially jerk-free acceleration and deceleration that is perceived as comfortable directly corresponds to reducing the feeling of acceleration or deceleration experienced by the passenger.
and wherein the vehicle is controlled
See at least: "A method for the automated control of the longitudinal movement of a motor vehicle..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The method involves control of the vehicle.
such that a change in the vehicle speed
See at least: "starting from a vehicle actual longitudinal speed and a vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration, the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Adjusting to a target speed involves managing the change in the vehicle speed.
during the vehicle's acceleration
See at least: "an automated positive acceleration process in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle..." (Abstract)
Rationale: A positive acceleration process is the vehicle's acceleration.
in the low-speed driving mode
See at least: "in a driving mode in which... the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed..." (Abstract)
Rationale: The driving mode is the operational state of the vehicle. When combined with Drown's teaching of a low-speed condition for mode selection, this constitutes the low-speed driving mode.
does not exceed
See at least: "taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Taking into account a maximum means ensuring acceleration does not exceed that limit.
a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
See at least: "a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration" (Abstract)
Rationale: A predetermined maximum... vehicle longitudinal acceleration is a predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to combine their teachings. Wan provides the foundational objective of a device to mitigate motion sickness via vehicle control based on user information during driving. Drown provides a specific, predictable vehicle control architecture featuring a determination unit that compares vehicle speed to a predetermined reference speed and selects distinct driving modes (low-speed and high-speed) based on that comparison and obstacle recognition, including mode transition conditions. Das provides the known, complementary technique of reducing changes in longitudinal acceleration (jerk) and enforcing predetermined longitudinal acceleration restrictions to achieve the passenger comfort and smoothness goals that are inherent to Wan's motion sickness mitigation objective. Integrating Das's comfort-control methodology into the speed-based and obstacle-responsive mode structure taught by Drown, within the context of Wan's user-configurable motion sickness prevention system, would yield the claimed device through predictable engineering integration to improve vehicle comfort and prevent sickness.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by WanWan does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the determination unit is configured to
determine
whether a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active,
when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered,
and compare the vehicle's speed with the first reference speed
when the driving function is active.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
wherein the determination unit is configured to
See at least: "The radar controller 14 includes a processor with control logic 20 for receiving and transmitting messages to control the ACC 10." ([0009])
Rationale: The control logic within the radar controller performs the determining and comparing functions, corresponding to the determination unit being configured to perform these tasks.
determine
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites the act of determine.
whether a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active,
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to... maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The system maintaining a preset time gap behind the target vehicle is a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking, and it becomes active upon target detection.
when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered,
Rationale: This limitation is provided by the foundation of Claim 10, established by Wan, which discloses entering the motion sickness prevention mode. Drown's determination logic is incorporated to operate within that mode.
And compare the vehicle's speed with the first reference speed
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed.
when the driving function is active.
See at least: The speed comparison in step 48 occurs after step 46 where "the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode" ([0020]), which is the active target-tracking function.
Rationale: The sequence in Drown shows the speed comparison is performed while the ACC system is engaged in its target-following mode, meaning when the driving function is active.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for determining whether a driving function based on target vehicle speed tracking is active and performing a speed comparison when the driving function is active into the combined vehicle control device framework established by Wan, Drown, and Das. Drown provides a predictable and compatible subsystem from the field of adaptive cruise control that manages longitudinal driving modes based on sensor input. Integrating this capability into the existing system (Wan's motion sickness mitigation foundation enhanced by Das's comfort-control techniques) would allow the device to make more nuanced, context-aware control decisions based on whether the vehicle is autonomously tracking a target, leading to more effective and situationally appropriate mitigation—a predictable goal for enhancing system intelligence and passenger comfort.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by WanWan discloses:
wherein the determination unit is configured to
See at least: "the processor configured to: receive an occupant profile... calculate... and deliver a vehicle performance signal..." ([0004])
Rationale: Wan's processor performs the determining and calculating functions attributed to the determination unit and is configured to perform these tasks.
determine,
See at least: "a determination is made as to whether the occupant accepts the selected driving profile." ([0049])
Rationale: Wan expressly recites the act of determination.
when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered,
See at least: "A vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation, is delivered by the processor to initiate motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: Initiating motion sickness mitigation corresponds to when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered.
one preconfigured detailed setting mode
See at least: "The driving profile 140 is an option selected from a list of preprogrammed commands for how the vehicle 20 will perform..." ([0049])
Rationale: A driving profile consisting of preprogrammed commands is a preconfigured detailed setting mode.
from among multiple detailed setting modes
See at least: "...selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140 from available options stored in the storage device 118." ([0058])
Rationale: Available options for driving profiles constitute multiple detailed setting modes.
that have different degrees of control intervention
See at least: "...selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140 from available options..." ([0058])
Rationale: Describing profiles as less aggressive indicates they govern the intensity of vehicle control, corresponding to different degrees of control intervention.
based on entering the motion sickness prevention mode,
See at least: "The process 300 may be initiated ... when the mitigation module 138 receives the mitigate signal 152 or 162 . Proceeding to step 304 , the process 300 adjusts vehicle performance..." ([0058])
Rationale: The initiation of the mitigation process (mode entry) triggers the adjustment of vehicle performance, which is performed based on entering the motion sickness prevention mode.
and the controller is further configured to
See at least: "a controller including a processor configured to: ... deliver a vehicle performance signal..." ([0004])
Rationale: Wan's controller and processor are configured to perform control functions.
control the vehicle
See at least: "The vehicle performance signal varies operation of a steering actuator, an acceleration actuator, and/or a brake actuator to implement the motion sickness mitigation." ([0004])
Rationale: Varying actuator operation is an act of controlling the vehicle.
based on the one detailed setting mode determined by the determination unit.
See at least: “In a number of examples this is accomplished by selecting a less aggressive driving profile 140… [and] the mitigation module 138 provides a vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30.” ([0058])
Rationale: Wan’s control signal is provided in the context of (and implemented via) the selected driving profile 140, corresponding to control based on the one detailed setting mode determined by the determination unit.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
based on the comparison result
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
based on the comparison result
See at least: "If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46. If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: The subsequent control steps are explicitly taken based on the result of comparing speed to the predetermined minimum.
Motivation to Combine Wan and Drown
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan and Drown before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for taking control actions based on the comparison result of a speed threshold into Wan’s system. Wan provides the framework for selecting and using preconfigured setting modes upon entering a motion sickness prevention mode. Drown provides a predictable and compatible control technique where a determination (comparison) result directly informs vehicle control decisions. Combining these teachings would result in a system where the selected detailed setting mode (from Wan) governs how control is applied, while the speed comparison result (from Drown) informs when or under what conditions specific control interventions from that mode are executed, leading to more nuanced and effective motion sickness mitigation.
Disclosure by DasDas further reinforces:
based on the one detailed setting mode determined by the determination unit.
See at least: "The jerk value is in turn determined in a driving mode in which, starting from a vehicle actual longitudinal speed and a vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration, the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a predetermined maximum driving mode vehicle longitudinal deceleration and at least one predetermined driving mode jerk absolute value which limits the jerk." (Abstract)
Rationale: Das's control logic explicitly calculates and applies a jerk value in a driving mode. The specific parameters (max acceleration, max deceleration, jerk limits) define that mode's character. The vehicle's longitudinal control is therefore executed based on the parameters and logic of the active mode.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s explicit technique of executing vehicle control based on the parameters of an active operational mode to the combined framework of Wan and Drown. In the combined system, Wan’s one detailed setting mode (e.g., a selected driving profile) defines the control parameters (like aggressiveness, jerk limits). Das teaches that vehicle control (like calculating jerk) is performed based on such mode-specific parameters. Integrating this principle ensures that the controller in the combined device executes its commands based on the one detailed setting mode determined, thereby achieving a predictable and cohesive control system where the selection of a comfort or performance mode directly dictates the vehicle's dynamic response.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
and control the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
when the obstacle is not present.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
See at least: "The radar controller 14 includes a processor with control logic 20 for receiving and transmitting messages to control the ACC 10." ([0009])
Rationale: The control logic within the radar controller is a controller that is configured to perform the system's control functions.
determine whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites determine if a target vehicle is in front, which corresponds to determine whether there is an obstacle in front of the vehicle.
when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46." ([0022])
Rationale: This step describes the condition when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed (the "predetermined minimum speed") and the subsequent action.
and control the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020]) Also, "In step 42, the driver... enables the ACC 10 to maintain a set speed..." ([0019])
Rationale: Setting the system into time gap mode or maintaining a set speed constitutes controlling the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode.
when the obstacle is not present.
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle. If no target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle, the method 40 returns to step 42." ([0020])
Rationale: The condition If no target vehicle is in front corresponds to when the obstacle is not present, which results in the system maintaining set speed (high-speed mode).
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for determining obstacle presence and selecting a high-speed driving mode when no obstacle is present into the combined vehicle control device framework of Claim 10. Drown provides a predictable and directly applicable control strategy from adaptive cruise control where the system's operational mode (high-speed cruise) is engaged based on both a speed threshold being exceeded and the absence of a leading vehicle (obstacle). Integrating this established, context-aware driving mode logic into Wan's motion sickness mitigation system would result in a more intelligent and safe vehicle control device, a predictable goal in automotive system design.
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by WanWan does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the controller is further configured to
determine
whether the obstacle is present
within a predetermined reference distance from the vehicle
by using a sensor unit
provided in the vehicle.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to
See at least: "The radar controller 14 includes a processor with control logic 20 for receiving and transmitting messages to control the ACC 10." ([0009])
Rationale: The control logic within the radar controller is part of the controller and is configured to perform system functions.
determine
See at least: "In step 44, the radar controller 14 and/or camera controller 16 determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: Drown expressly recites the act of determine.
whether the obstacle is present
See at least: "determine if a target vehicle is in front of the host vehicle." ([0020])
Rationale: A target vehicle is an obstacle, so determining its presence corresponds to whether the obstacle is present.
within a predetermined reference distance from the vehicle
See at least: "When the calculated time to an object is below a predetermined time to an object, a following alert is transmitted..." ([0010])
Rationale: A predetermined time to an object, when multiplied by vehicle speed, defines a predetermined reference distance. The system determines if the object is within that time/distance threshold.
by using a sensor unit
See at least: "The ACC 10 includes a radar controller 14. The radar controller 14 transmits and receives radar signals, which are electromagnetic waves used to detect an object's presence..." ([0008])
Rationale: The radar controller is a sensor unit used for detection.
provided in the vehicle.
See at least: "The ACC 10 includes a radar controller 14." ([0008])
Rationale: The radar controller is a component of the ACC system, which is provided in the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and DasTherefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit technique for determining whether an obstacle is present within a predetermined reference distance using a vehicle-mounted sensor unit into the combined vehicle control device framework. Drown provides a predictable and industry-standard method for obstacle detection and ranging in automotive applications. Integrating this specific capability enhances the device's ability to make safe and context-aware control decisions (as required in claim 15) within Wan's motion sickness mitigation system, leading to a more comprehensive and effective vehicle control device.
Regarding Claim 17,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 15, which is the basis for Claim 17.
Disclosure by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
control the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
when the driving function is active
in case that the obstacle is present.
Disclosure by DrownDrown discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to
See at least: "The radar controller 14 includes a processor with control logic 20 for receiving and transmitting messages to control the ACC 10." ([0009])
Rationale: The radar controller with its control logic is a controller that is configured to perform system functions.
control the vehicle in the high-speed driving mode
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Setting the system into time gap mode is an act of longitudinal control applied to the vehicle. This mode is engaged when speed is above a minimum threshold, corresponding to a high-speed driving mode.
when the driving function is active
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to one or more of the braking system controller 12, the engine retarder 28 and the engine controller 30 to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The ACC system transmitting messages to maintain a time gap is the driving function (adaptive cruise control) being active.
in case that the obstacle is present.
See at least: "If a target vehicle is detected, the method 40 goes to step 46." ([0020])
Rationale: A target vehicle is an obstacle. The condition If a target vehicle is detected corresponds to in case that the obstacle is present, which triggers entry into the time gap mode (the high-speed driving mode).
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for controlling the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode specifically when the driving function is active and an obstacle is present into the combined vehicle control device framework of Claim 15. Drown provides a predictable and directly applicable control strategy from adaptive cruise control where the presence of a target vehicle (obstacle) triggers the active, target-following longitudinal control mode (time gap mode). Integrating this established, context-aware control logic into Wan's motion sickness mitigation system (which provides the foundational control device objective and user-configurable mode entry) would result in a more intelligent, safe, and situationally appropriate vehicle control device—a predictable goal in automotive system design to enhance both comfort and functionality.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 18.
Disclosure by WanWan discloses:
a controller configured to determine whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating
See at least: "an accelerometer on the vehicle, configured to monitor acceleration of the vehicle and to provide, to the processor, a first vehicle state signal based on the acceleration, when the vehicle operates on the route." ([0009])
Rationale: An accelerometer that monitors acceleration and provides a corresponding signal to the processor enables the controller to determine whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating by processing that acceleration data.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
determine when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
control the vehicle in a first high-speed driving mode, which is based on an acceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration, in case that the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination;
control the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode, which is based on a deceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration, when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
determine when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed;
See at least: "In step 48, the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 returns to step 46." ([0022])
Rationale: The condition If the speed of the host vehicle is greater than the predetermined minimum speed corresponds to determining when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed.
control the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode
See at least: "In step 46, the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a time gap mode." ([0020])
Rationale: Setting the adaptive cruise control system into time gap mode constitutes controlling the vehicle in a longitudinal driving mode. This mode is engaged when the vehicle speed is greater than the predetermined minimum speed (from [0022]), thereby establishing it as a high-speed driving mode.
determine whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating (within the high-speed driving mode context)
See at least: "The engine controller 30 ... receives acceleration messages and propels the vehicle in response. The retarder 28 receives deceleration messages and assists in slowing the vehicle in response." ([0016])
Rationale: The generation of distinct acceleration messages and deceleration messages within the active ACC system (time gap mode) inherently requires and reflects a control logic that determines whether vehicle propulsion (accelerating) or slowing (decelerating) is needed to maintain the target gap. This operational context occurs when the vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed.
Motivation to Combine Wan and Drown
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan and Drown before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit logic for determining acceleration/deceleration commands within a high-speed driving mode that is active when the vehicle speed exceeds a first reference speed into Wan’s vehicle control device. Wan provides the foundational device and the objective of mitigating passenger discomfort. Drown provides a predictable, real-world example of a longitudinal control system that makes acceleration/deceleration decisions based on sensor data and vehicle speed. Combining these teachings would yield a more capable and context-aware control device—a predictable goal for enhancing vehicle systems.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and DrownAfter combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
control the vehicle in a first high-speed driving mode, which is based on an acceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration, in case that the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination;
control the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode, which is based on a deceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration, when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by DasDas discloses:
control the vehicle in a first high-speed driving mode, which is based on an acceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of acceleration
See at least: "The jerk value is in turn determined in a driving mode in which, starting from a vehicle actual longitudinal speed and a vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration, the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a predetermined maximum driving mode vehicle longitudinal deceleration and at least one predetermined driving mode jerk absolute value which limits the jerk." ([0025])
Rationale: Das discloses controlling the vehicle using a jerk-limited driving mode that adjusts vehicle speed while enforcing a maximum positive longitudinal acceleration and a jerk limit. jerk-limited driving mode that constrains longitudinal acceleration and jerk is a comfort-oriented acceleration trajectory. A PHOSITA would implement such a commanded acceleration trajectory in a drive-by-wire vehicle by issuing time-varying propulsion actuation commands (e.g., propulsion torque requests), since propulsion torque is the standard actuator-level mechanism for producing longitudinal acceleration. Thus, under BRI, Das renders obvious controlling the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode “based on an acceleration torque profile” generated to reduce passenger-perceived acceleration, consistent with Das’s stated objective of “gentle and comfortable” adjustment.
in case that the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination
See at least: "the driving mode jerk value 10 determined, in the exemplary embodiment, based on the driving mode 8, in such a way that the motor vehicle can be adjusted gently and comfortably to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4 taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration 12..." ([0022])
Rationale: The driving mode is applied when the vehicle needs to adjust to a higher target speed, i.e., when it is accelerating. This corresponds to applying the comfort-oriented control in case that the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination made by the system (e.g., Drown's decision to send an acceleration message).
control the vehicle in a second high-speed driving mode, which is based on a deceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger's feeling of deceleration
See at least: "In the deceleration mode 9, a deceleration mode jerk value 17 that represents a change over time in the acceleration variable 11 is determined. The change over time in the acceleration variable 11 in turn representing a vehicle setpoint longitudinal acceleration with which the motor vehicle is subsequently decelerated gently and comfortably." ([0028])
Rationale: Das teaches a deceleration mode that determines a jerk value and applies a time-shaped setpoint longitudinal acceleration for “gently and comfortably” decelerating the vehicle. A PHOSITA would implement such a commanded deceleration trajectory in a drive-by-wire vehicle by issuing time-varying braking actuation commands (e.g., brake torque/pressure requests), since braking torque is the standard actuator-level mechanism that produces longitudinal deceleration. Thus, under BRI, Das renders obvious controlling the vehicle in a high-speed driving mode “based on a deceleration torque profile” generated to reduce passenger-perceived deceleration.
when the vehicle is decelerating.
See at least: "The jerk value 17 in the deceleration operating mode 9 is such that the motor vehicle can be, starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4, decelerated gently and comfortably to the stationary state..." ([0028])
Rationale: The deceleration mode is explicitly engaged to bring about vehicle deceleration, corresponding to when the vehicle is decelerating.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and DasTherefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s explicit techniques for comfort-oriented, jerk-limited acceleration and deceleration control to the high-speed driving mode framework established by Drown and utilized within Wan's vehicle control device. Wan teaches a vehicle controller that outputs a performance signal varying operation of accelerator and brake actuators to mitigate motion sickness and reduce occupant discomfort. Drown teaches high-speed longitudinal following above a predetermined speed threshold based on target tracking, which necessarily alternates propulsion and braking (acceleration vs deceleration) in that regime, and Das teaches comfort-oriented jerk-limited acceleration/deceleration profiles. It would have been obvious for the controller to determine whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating when vehicle speed exceeds the first reference speed and, based on that determination, control the vehicle in a first high-speed mode using an acceleration actuation profile and in a second high-speed mode using a deceleration actuation profile to reduce passenger-perceived acceleration/deceleration; under BRI, the recited “torque profiles” read on the time-varying propulsion/braking actuation commands implementing Das’s profiles via Wan’s accelerator/brake actuators.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan, in view of Drown, in view of Das, and in view of Lee et al. (US 20200164879 A1), herein after will be referred to as Lee.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle driving control method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Wan
Wan teaches:
wherein the controlling further comprises:
See at least: "The processor delivers a vehicle performance signal correlated to the calculation to initiate motion sickness mitigation, wherein the vehicle performance signal varies operation of... the accelerator actuator or the brake actuator..." ([0011])
Rationale: Delivering a signal to vary actuator operation corresponds to controlling, and this is part of the method's process, corresponding to wherein the controlling further comprises.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Wan
Wan does not explicitly teach:
determining whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed;
and controlling the vehicle in a first low-speed driving mode,
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
and controlling the vehicle in a second low-speed driving mode,
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle’s speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by Drown
Drown teaches:
when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed;
See at least: "the radar controller 14 compares the host vehicle speed to a predetermined minimum speed. ... If the speed of the host vehicle is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed, the method 40 proceeds to step 50." ([0022])
Rationale: Drown's "less than or equal to the predetermined minimum speed" corresponds to when the vehicle speed is equal to or lower than the first reference speed.
and controlling the vehicle in a first low-speed driving mode,
See at least: "In step 50, the radar controller 14 sets the ACC 10 in a following distance mode." ([0023])
Rationale: Drown's "following distance mode" is a specific mode entered when speed is low, corresponding to a low-speed driving mode, and setting the ACC in this mode constitutes controlling the vehicle in a first low-speed driving mode.
determining whether the vehicle is accelerating or decelerating
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to one or more of the braking system controller 12, the engine retarder 28 and the engine controller 30 to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap... behind the target vehicle." ([0016])
Rationale: The transmission of messages to either the engine controller (for acceleration) or braking system/retarder (for deceleration) to maintain a gap implies the system determines whether to command accelerating or decelerating.
Motivation to Combine Wan and Drown
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan and Drown before them, to incorporate Drown’s explicit speed-threshold comparison, low-speed mode selection, and acceleration/deceleration command logic into Wan’s motion sickness mitigation control framework. Both references pertain to vehicle longitudinal control during driving, and Drown provides a predictable technique for engaging specific control modes and commands based on vehicle speed and traffic conditions, which would be a compatible and logical subsystem within Wan’s broader mitigation control system.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and Drown
After combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
and controlling the vehicle in a second low-speed driving mode,
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle’s speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by Das
Das teaches:
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
See at least: "the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a predetermined maximum driving mode vehicle longitudinal deceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Taking into account predetermined maximum longitudinal acceleration and deceleration values corresponds to imposing a restriction on longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
See at least: "the driving mode jerk value 10 determined, in the exemplary embodiment, based on the driving mode 8, in such a way that the motor vehicle can be adjusted gently and comfortably to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4 taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration 12..." ([0022])
Rationale: The driving mode is used when the vehicle is to be adjusted to a higher speed (accelerating) and uses the maximum positive acceleration. This corresponds to controlling the vehicle when the vehicle is accelerating based on the determination (from Drown) of the need to accelerate.
and controlling the vehicle in a second low-speed driving mode,
See at least: "In the deceleration mode 9, a deceleration mode jerk value 17 that represents a change over time in the acceleration variable 11 is determined. The change over time in the acceleration variable 11 in turn representing a vehicle setpoint longitudinal acceleration with which the motor vehicle is subsequently decelerated gently and comfortably." ([0028])
Rationale: Das has a distinct deceleration mode for when the vehicle is to be decelerated, which corresponds to a second low-speed driving mode.
when the vehicle is decelerating.
See at least: "The jerk value 17 in the deceleration operating mode 9 is such that the motor vehicle can be, starting from the vehicle actual longitudinal speed 3 and the vehicle actual longitudinal acceleration 4, decelerated gently and comfortably to the stationary state within the predetermined distance taking into account the predetermined maximum deceleration mode vehicle longitudinal deceleration 5 and the predetermined deceleration mode jerk absolute value 6." ([0028])
Rationale: The deceleration mode is explicitly for decelerating the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and Das
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s explicit techniques for restricting longitudinal acceleration and providing a distinct deceleration mode within the low-speed driving mode framework established by combining Wan and Drown. Das provides known and predictable methods for comfort-oriented longitudinal control (including acceleration restriction and deceleration modes) that directly align with the objectives of Wan’s motion sickness mitigation and can be implemented within Drown’s speed-based mode structure and command logic.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan, Drown, and DasAfter combining the teachings of Wan, Drown, and Das, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle’s speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
Disclosure by Lee
Lee teaches:
in which neutral N is applied
See at least: "activate an engine idle sailing (EIS) function of the host vehicle, in which a driving gear of the host vehicle shifts to neutral" ([0005])
Rationale: Lee expressly teaches shifting the driving gear to neutral, which corresponds to neutral N is applied.
when the vehicle’s speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
See at least: "If the ECU determines that the current speed of the host vehicle 100 is greater than a predefined EIS activation speed, at step 225, the EIS system of the host vehicle 100 can be activated..." ([0033])
Rationale: Activating the EIS (neutral) function based on the vehicle speed being greater than a predefined speed corresponds to applying neutral when the vehicle’s speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, Das, and Lee
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, Das, and Lee before them, to incorporate Lee’s explicit techniques for applying neutral gear and conditioning gear application on a predetermined speed threshold into the combined longitudinal control framework. Lee operates in the same technical field of vehicle longitudinal control for efficiency/comfort, and its teachings on neutral sailing (EIS) provide a predictable and compatible method for implementing the neutral application in the second low-speed deceleration mode (from Das) when the speed reaches a predetermined reference speed.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das establishes the vehicle control device of Claim 10, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by WanWan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to
control the vehicle in a first low-speed driving mode,
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
and control the vehicle in a second low-speed driving mode,
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle's speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
when the vehicle is decelerating.
Disclosure by DrownDrown teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to
See at least: "The radar controller 14... includes a processor with control logic 20 for... transmitting messages to control the ACC 10." ([0009])
Rationale: The radar controller with its control logic is a controller that is configured to command vehicle control actions.
control the vehicle in a first low-speed driving mode,
See at least: "the radar controller 14 will set the ACC 10 in a following distance mode." ([0023])
Rationale: The following distance mode is entered when speed is low and constitutes controlling the vehicle in a low-speed driving mode.
when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination,
See at least: "The engine controller 30... receives acceleration messages and propels the vehicle in response." ([0016])
Rationale: The engine controller propelling the vehicle in response to acceleration messages corresponds to when the vehicle is accelerating as a result of the determination made by the system.
and control the vehicle in a second low-speed driving mode,
Rationale: The foundation of a second low-speed driving mode is established by the combination of teachings from Drown (which provides the context of mode-based control) and the subsequent references that define its specific characteristic (applying neutral).
when the vehicle is decelerating.
See at least: "When a target vehicle is detected, the ACC 10 transmits messages to one or more of the braking system controller 12, the engine retarder 28... to maintain the host vehicle at a preset time gap..." ([0016])
Rationale: Sending commands to the braking system or retarder is done when the vehicle is decelerating to maintain a gap.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan and DrownAfter combining the teachings of Wan and Drown, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle's speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
Disclosure by DasDas discloses:
in which the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle is restricted,
See at least: "the motor vehicle is adjusted to a predetermined vehicle longitudinal speed taking into account a predetermined maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration, a predetermined maximum driving mode vehicle longitudinal deceleration..." (Abstract)
Rationale: Applying a predetermined maximum for acceleration is a method of restricting the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, and DasTherefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, and Das before them, to apply Das’s technique of restricting longitudinal acceleration using predetermined maximum values to the low-speed driving mode framework established by Drown and used within Wan's motion sickness mitigation system. Das provides a known and predictable method for ensuring comfortable, limited acceleration—a direct contributor to mitigating motion sickness—which would be a logical feature to implement in a first low-speed driving mode designed for passenger comfort.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Wan, Drown, and DasAfter combining the teachings of Wan, Drown, and Das, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
in which neutral N is applied
when the vehicle's speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
Disclosure by LeeLee provides teachings for the following remaining missing elements:
in which neutral N is applied
See at least: "activating an engine idle sailing (EIS) function of the host vehicle, in which a driving gear of the host vehicle shifts to neutral..." ([0005])
Rationale: Shifting the driving gear... to neutral is the application of neutral N.
when the vehicle's speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed,
See at least: "If the ECU determines that the current speed of the host vehicle 100 is greater than a predefined EIS activation speed, at step 225, the EIS system of the host vehicle 100 can be activated..." ([0033])
Rationale: Activating the neutral function (EIS) based on the current speed being greater than a predefined... speed corresponds to applying neutral when the vehicle's speed reaches a predetermined second reference speed.
Motivation to Combine Wan, Drown, Das, and Lee
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Wan, Drown, Das, and Lee before them, to incorporate Lee’s explicit technique of applying neutral N based on a predetermined second reference speed to define the specific operation of the second low-speed driving mode for deceleration. Lee's EIS system provides a known method for improving efficiency and coasting comfort by disengaging the drivetrain at appropriate speeds. Integrating this feature into the deceleration phase of the low-speed control strategy (established by Drown and Das within Wan's mitigation system) would be a predictable way to further reduce a feeling of... deceleration—a core objective of Claim 10—by eliminating engine braking forces, thereby enhancing the overall motion sickness prevention capability of the device.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 11/05/2025. The Applicant’s arguments asserting that the prior art fails to disclose a "predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction" used under the "precondition" of a low-speed driving mode have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s Arguments are Not Responsive to the Current Grounds of Rejection
Applicant’s traversal is directed toward the previously applied references (Satou and Walter), arguing that they merely disclose mode switching. However, the current Final Rejection is maintained under a different combination: Wan in view of Drown and Das, and, further, in view of Lee for the dependent claims.
Because the Final Rejection relies on the specific structural and dynamic teachings of Drown and Das—which were not part of the primary combination in the previous Action—Applicant’s arguments regarding Satou/Walter do not identify error in the current grounds of rejection and are therefore moot.
Disclosure of the "Low-Speed Mode Precondition"
Applicant contends that the art fails to disclose the use of a restriction under the precondition of a low-speed driving mode. This is contradicted by the express teachings of Drown.
Drown discloses a controller that compares host vehicle speed to a "predetermined minimum speed". If the speed is less than or equal to this threshold, the system enters a "following distance mode". This mode is a specific low-speed driving mode designed to handle slow traffic and prevent aggressive maneuvers. Consequently, Drown provides the exact operational "precondition" required by Claim 1.
Disclosure of the "Predetermined Longitudinal Acceleration Restriction"
Applicant further argues that the references fail to teach a "predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction" within said mode. This limitation is squarely met by Das.
Das teaches an automated longitudinal control method where the vehicle is adjusted to a target speed while "taking into account a predeterminable maximum positive driving mode vehicle longitudinal acceleration". This maximum positive acceleration value is a "predetermined longitudinal acceleration restriction" that caps the rate of speed change during acceleration. Furthermore, Das specifies that movement is "essentially jerk limited" , which directly corresponds to the claim requirement of reducing the change in longitudinal acceleration.
Technical and Legal Soundness of the Combination
A PHOSITA seeking to implement Wan’s motion sickness mitigation system would naturally combine the architectural framework of Drown with the dynamic constraints of Das:
Motivation: PHOSITA would recognize that low-speed, stop-and-go traffic is a primary trigger for motion sickness. It would be obvious to incorporate Das’s comfort-oriented acceleration caps into Drown’s low-speed "following distance mode" to ensure the vehicle does not exceed the nauseogenic force thresholds established in Wan.
Predictable Result: The combination represents the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" (KSR v. Teleflex). Applying a known acceleration cap (Das) to a known low-speed control state (Drown) to achieve a known comfort objective (Wan) yields exactly the result recited in Claim 1.
The combination of Wan, Drown, and Das (and Lee for gear-specific limitations) provides a complete roadmap for the claimed invention. Drown provides the speed-based "precondition" and Das provides the "predetermined restriction" used within that mode to mitigate motion sickness as established by Wan.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662