Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered, but they are unpersuasive.
3. Applicant’s arguments filed February 17, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (US 20190022347A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 20180313663A1) in further view of Osborn (US 20070183343A1) have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Kobayashi does not disclose claimed feature (ii) of claims 8 and 17 that is amended into claims 1 and 13 respectively, namely, “controlling the vehicle to decelerate based on the deceleration demand torque until the vehicle’s speed is equal to or lower than a predetermined second reference speed.” Applicant indicates that Kobayashi discusses acceleration demand torque rather than deceleration demand torque and step S103 of Fig. relates to vehicle speed exceeding a predetermined speed to display warning rather than to deceleration control.
However, examiner indicates that applicant fails to address the rejection as actually made. The rejection does not rely on Kobayashi alone to teach the claimed feature (ii), and the rejection does not rely on Kobayashi to teach the deceleration demand torque. Rather, Wan is relied upon for a speed based deceleration control and determine a deceleration demand torque based on vehicle speed. As indicated in the previous Office Action, Wan in [0040] teaches a controller is communicatively connected to speed sensors and brake actuator, i.e. deceleration based on vehicle speed, and [0058] teaches a mitigation module and actuator system to modify the response of the brake actuator. Therefore, Wan teaches the deceleration control aspect of the amended claims 1 and 13.
Next, Kobayashi is relied on for teaching a use of a predetermined reference speed of when a control is active and not active. As shown in previous Office Action, Kobayashi in Fig. 2, [00490-[0050], and [0053] teaches determining whether a vehicle speed exceeds threshold speed, i.e. predetermined reference speed, in step S103 and indicates that controller is active when vehicle speed is above the threshold to issue a warning of potential motion sickness, i.e. relevant control for motion sickness prevention. Kobayashi, therefore, teaches the claimed concept of a predetermined speed boundary used to determine continuation of the control where there is controlling a relevant motion sickness prevention control as long as a vehicle speed is above a predetermined reference speed and a stop of control when the vehicle speed is equal or lower than the predetermined reference speed, i.e. control maintained above a threshold speed and ceases when the vehicle speed is no longer greater than a threshold, which would be a control until the vehicle speed is equal or lower than a predetermined reference speed.
It would have been, therefore, obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify speed based deceleration control of Wan by incorporating Kobayashi such that Kobayashi’s predetermined speed condition when above a threshold speed indicates that Wan’s control continues until vehicle speed reaches or falls below the threshold speed, i.e. deceleration control until predetermined reference speed.
Therefore, the combined teaching of Wan and Kobayashi teaches feature (ii) of claims 8 and 17 that is amended into claims 1 and 13 respectively. Hence, applicant’s argument addressing only what Kobayashi teaches without addressing the combined teachings of Wan and Kobayashi is unpersuasive with regards to amended claims 1 and 13.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an execution determination unit” in claim 13 is a generic place holder followed by “configured to determine…” as a functional language. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the claimed determining whether a motion sickness prevention mode is entered is part of a vehicle control device 100 in Fig. 1 and [0047].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-13, and 16, 18-21 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (US 20190022347A1) in view of Kobayashi (US 20180313663A1) in further view of Osborn et al. (US 20070182243A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wan et al. teaches a vehicle driving control method (Wan et al. [0058]-[0060] and Fig. 5 generally) comprising:
determining, by an execution determination unit, whether a motion sickness prevention mode is entered, based on road condition information and user-configured information about whether to activate the motion sickness prevention mode, during driving of a vehicle (Wan et al. [0058] where mitigation module 138 receives the mitigate signal 152 or 162 for motion sickness. See also [0050] where determination of motion sickness may occur depending on route profile/environmental situations in steps 210, 212 in Fig. 3, which then leads to mitigation measures at step 218; see further [0060] and Fig. 5 where the occupant can choose to adjust or override mitigation regimen in step 304, which is part of the mitigation process 218 and 300.); and
controlling, by a controller, when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered, the vehicle based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration depending on whether the vehicle accelerates or decelerates(see Wan [0040] and Fig. 1 where a controller 28 is connected to actuator system 30 that control an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan et al. [0058] and Fig. 5 where “mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the accelerator actuator 70”, i.e. controlling during motion sickness mitigation step; Wan et al. also provides where occupant can choose to adjust motion sickness mitigation process in [0060]. Wan et al. [0057] and [0058] where positive value of MSV, which is an aggregate motion sickness value depending on the vehicle input signal that includes longitudinal and lateral acceleration values from acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 [0051]-[0053], is determined during process 200 and moves to step 218 where mitigation is conducted.);
wherein the controlling comprises:
controlling the vehicle to decelerate based on a deceleration torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of deceleration in case that the vehicle is decelerating see Wan [0058] where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76 to mitigate motion sickness.);
controlling the vehicle to accelerate based on an acceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger’s feeling of acceleration in case that the vehicle is accelerating see Wan [0058] where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70 to mitigate motion sickness.); and
generating the deceleration torque profile when a brake-pedal position sensor receives an input see Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where motion sickness mitigation at step 218 includes process 300 that involves mitigation module 138, providing vehicle performance signal 174, which monitors and control actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76, i.e. brake pedal, to mitigate motion sickness; see further [0039] and [0040] where brake system receives inputs from brake pedal and brake actuator and sensors are communicatively coupled to a controller that controls the brake system.); and
determining a deceleration demand torque based on the vehicle’s speed to follow the deceleration torque profile (see Wan [0040] and Fig. 2 where controller 28 is connected to both speed sensors 84 and a brake actuator 76 of a brake system 50. These are communicatively coupled to control vehicle operations or features such as deceleration through brake, i.e. deceleration based on vehicle speed; see also Wan et al. [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the brake actuator 76.).
Wan does not teach: controlling the vehicle to decelerate based on the deceleration demand torque until the vehicle’s speed is equal to or lower than a predetermined second reference speed;
wherein the generating comprises generating the deceleration torque profile when a deceleration input torque corresponding to a sensing value of the brake-pedal position sensor is less than a predetermined reference torque; and
wherein when the deceleration input torque is greater than or equal to the predetermined reference torque, the controller is configured to release control so that deceleration control based on the deceleration torque profile is not performed.
However, Osborn teaches a soft-stop routine, a mitigation of jerk, i.e. mitigation of motion sickness, when braking effort, determined by brake pedal travel, is below a threshold, which generates a deceleration profile to smooth out braking pressure, and exits the soft-stop routine when braking effort is beyond the threshold and secondary braking function is active, i.e. brake control module release control so that deceleration control based on soft-stop profile is not performed (see Osborn [0030], [0017], [0019], and Fig. 2).
Further, while Wan teaches controlling the vehicle based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration depending on whether the vehicle accelerates or decelerates, as shown above, it does not explicitly teach controlling the vehicle based on the generated torque profile in high speed driving situation where the vehicle’s speed exceeds a predetermined first reference speed.
However, Kobayashi teaches a motion sickness prevention system that activates when the vehicle’s speed exceeds a predetermined first reference speed (see Kobayashi Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0053] regarding a method implemented using a controller to prevent motion sickness. Specifically, see [0049]-[0050] regarding step S103 wherein it is determined that the vehicle speed is greater than a threshold speed. See also [0053] regarding step S106 where, if the speed is greater than the threshold speed, the controller issues a warning indicating the potential for motion sickness due to “high speed” driving.). Since Kobayashi, as applied to Wan in the rejection of claim 1, teaches motion sickness prevention system to be active only when the vehicle speed in greater than a threshold speed, the system will stop the motion sickness prevention measures when the speed is below the threshold speed and decelerate as normal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle for mitigation of motion sickness based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration of Wan by incorporating teaching of Kobayashi and Osborn such that the motion sickness prevention system activates when the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed and a soft-stop routine generates a deceleration profile when below a threshold brake effort, i.e. brake pedal distance threshold, and exits the soft-stop routine when above the threshold.
The motivation to activate motion sickness prevention system when a vehicle exceeds a threshold speed is that, as indicated by Kobayashi, this would allow for a passenger and occupants of the vehicle to be aware and prevent motion sickness without having to constantly look forward unlike a driver who may not be affected due to being aware of constant changes while looking forward (see [0003] and [0006]).
The motivation to have a soft-stop routine to generate a deceleration profile when brake effort, i.e. brake pedal distance, is below a threshold and exits the soft-stop routine when above the threshold is that, as indicated by Osborn, this would allow for elimination of a hard stop that will lead to jolt or jerk that is displeasing to passengers and driver traveling in a vehicle without having to rely on driver’s actions of applying right amount of force on a brake pedal (see [0007] and [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 1, wherein the controlling further comprises:
controlling the vehicle to decelerate based on the generated deceleration torque profile (see Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control and modify the brake actuator 76 and the level of modification can be selected based on MSV as shown in claim 1, i.e. control of deceleration based on profile chosen with motion sickness value (MSV).).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 4, wherein the generating comprises:
determining a deceleration torque gain value during deceleration in the high-speed driving situation (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76; see also Wan et al. claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration.); and
generating the deceleration torque profile, based on the determined deceleration torque gain value (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76; see also Wan et al. claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration. Also, note [0039] indicates that accelerator system 45, which encompasses accelerator actuator 70 and propulsion system 44, can both accelerate and decelerate the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 4,
wherein the controlling comprises controlling the vehicle to decelerate based on one of multiple deceleration torque profiles that have been generated to have different degrees of deceleration torque control depending on at least one among a sensitivity of the passenger to deceleration and a driving mode of the vehicle (see Wan [0057]-[0058] where a storage device 118 has available options of driving profile, including a less aggressive driving profile 140. To mitigate motion sickness, a motion sickness value (MSV) is calculated using input from sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 and then a level of modification, or options, from the storage device 118 can be selected depending on the MSV value or as preferred.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises:
generating the acceleration torque profile when an accelerator-pedal position sensor receives an input in the high-speed driving situation when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered (see Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where motion sickness mitigation at step 218 includes process 300 that involves mitigation module 138, providing vehicle performance signal 174, which monitors and control actuator system 30 to modify the response of an acceleration actuator 70 to mitigate motion sickness.); and
controlling the vehicle to accelerate based on the generated acceleration torque profile (see Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control and modify the acceleration actuator 70 and the level of modification can be selected based on MSV as shown in claim 1, i.e. control of deceleration based on profile chosen with motion sickness value (MSV).).
Regarding claim 10, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 9, wherein the generating comprises:
determining an acceleration torque gain value during acceleration in the high-speed driving situation (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration.); and
generating the acceleration torque profile based on the determined acceleration torque gain value (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan et al. claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration. Also, note [0039] indicates that accelerator system 45, which encompasses accelerator actuator 70 and propulsion system 44, can both accelerate and decelerate the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 9,
wherein the controlling comprises controlling the vehicle to accelerate based on one of multiple acceleration torque profiles that have been generated to have different degrees of acceleration torque control depending on at least one among a sensitivity of the passenger to acceleration and a driving mode of the vehicle (see Wan [0057]-[0058] where a storage device 118 has available options of driving profile, which includes a less aggressive driving profile 140. To mitigate motion sickness, a motion sickness value (MSV) is calculated using input from sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 and then a level of modification, or options, from the storage device 118 can be selected depending on the MSV value or as preferred.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 1, wherein the controlling comprises:
determining an acceleration demand torque based on the vehicle’s speed to follow the acceleration torque profile (see Wan [0040] and Fig. 2 where controller 28 is connected to both speed sensors 84 and an accelerator actuator 70. These are communicatively coupled to control vehicle operations or features such as acceleration, i.e. acceleration based on vehicle speed; see also Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the accelerator actuator 70.); and
controlling the vehicle to accelerate based on the acceleration demand torque until the vehicle’s speed is equal to or higher than a predetermined third reference speed (see Kobayashi Fig. 2 and [0049]-[0050] regarding step S103 wherein it is determined that a vehicle speed is greater than a threshold speed; see further [0053] regarding step S106 where, if the speed is greater than the threshold speed, the controller issues a warning indicating the potential for motion sickness due to “high speed” driving. Since Kobayashi, as applied to Wan in the rejection of claim 1, teaches performing the mitigation only when the vehicle speed is above a threshold, the mitigation in the combined Wan/Kobayashi system/method would operate only after the speed threshold is reached. Therefore, accelerator demand torque at speeds below the threshold would be directly applied to accelerate the vehicle with no mitigation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle for mitigation of motion sickness based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration of Wan by incorporating teaching of Kobayashi such that the motion sickness prevention system activates when the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed.
The motivation to activate motion sickness prevention system when a vehicle exceeds a threshold speed is that, as indicated by Kobayashi, this would allow for a passenger and occupants of the vehicle to be aware and prevent motion sickness without having to constantly look forward unlike a driver who may not be affected due to being aware of constant changes while looking forward (see [0003] and [0006]).
Regarding claim 13, Wan et al. teaches a vehicle driving control device (Wan et al. [0058]-[0060] and Fig. 5 generally) comprising:
an execution determination unit configured to determine whether a motion sickness prevention mode is entered, based on road condition information and user-configured information about whether to activate the motion sickness prevention mode, during driving of a vehicle (Wan [0058] where mitigation module 138 receives the mitigate signal 152 or 162 for motion sickness. See also [0050] where determination of motion sickness may occur depending on route profile/environmental situations in steps 210, 212 in Fig. 3, which then leads to mitigation measures at step 218; see further [0060] and Fig. 5 where the occupant can choose to adjust or override mitigation regimen in step 304, which is part of the mitigation process 218 and 300.); and
a controller configured to, when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered, control the vehicle based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration depending on whether the vehicle accelerates or decelerates(see Wan [0040] and Fig. 1 where a controller 28 is connected to actuator system 30 that control an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where “mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the accelerator actuator 70”, i.e. controlling during motion sickness mitigation step; Wan et al. also provides where occupant can choose to adjust motion sickness mitigation process in [0060]. Wan [0057] and [0058] where positive value of MSV, which is an aggregate motion sickness value depending on the vehicle input signal that includes longitudinal and lateral acceleration values from acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 [0051]-[0053], is determined during process 200 and moves to step 218 where mitigation is conducted.);
wherein the controller is further configured to:
control the vehicle to decelerate based on a deceleration torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of deceleration when the vehicle is decelerating in the high-speed driving situation (see Wan [0058] where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76 to mitigate motion sickness. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 the modified Wan method/system operates when the vehicle is in a high-speed driving situation.); and
control the vehicle to accelerate based on an acceleration torque profile generated to reduce the passenger’s feeling of acceleration when the vehicle is accelerating in the high-speed driving situation (see Wan [0058] where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70 to mitigate motion sickness.);
determine a deceleration input torque corresponding to a sensing value of a brake pedal position sensor when the brake-pedal position sensor receives an input in the high-speed driving situation when the motion sickness prevention mode is entered (see Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where motion sickness mitigation at step 218 includes process 300 that involves mitigation module 138, providing vehicle performance signal 174, which monitors and control actuator system 30 to modify the response of a brake actuator 76, i.e. brake pedal, to mitigate motion sickness; see further [0039] and [0040] where brake system receives inputs from brake pedal and brake actuator and sensors are communicatively coupled to a controller that controls the brake system.); and
determining a deceleration demand torque based on the vehicle’s speed to follow the deceleration torque profile (see Wan [0040] and Fig. 2 where controller 28 is connected to both speed sensors 84 and a brake actuator 76 of a brake system 50. These are communicatively coupled to control vehicle operations or features such as deceleration through brake, i.e. deceleration based on vehicle speed; see also Wan et al. [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the brake actuator 76.).
Wan does not teach: generate the deceleration torque profile when the deceleration input torque is less than a predetermined reference torque;
control the vehicle to decelerate based on the generated deceleration torque profile; and
control the vehicle to decelerate based on the deceleration demand torque until the vehicle’s speed is equal to or lower than a predetermined second reference speed;
wherein the deceleration input torque is greater than or equal to the predetermined reference torque, the controller is configured to release control so that deceleration control based on the deceleration torque profile is not performed.
However, Osborn teaches a soft-stop routine, a mitigation of jerk, i.e. mitigation of motion sickness, when braking effort, determined by brake pedal travel, is below a threshold, which generates a deceleration profile to smooth out braking pressure, and exits the soft-stop routine when braking effort is beyond the threshold and secondary braking function is active, i.e. brake control module release control so that deceleration control based on soft-stop profile is not performed (see Osborn [0030], [0017], [0019], and Fig. 2).
Further, while Wan et al. teaches controlling the vehicle based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration depending on whether the vehicle accelerates or decelerates, as shown above, it does not explicitly teach controlling the vehicle based on the generated torque profile where the vehicle’s speed exceeds a predetermined first reference speed.
However, Kobayashi teaches a motion sickness prevention system that activates when the vehicle’s speed exceeds a predetermined first reference speed (see Kobayashi Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0053] regarding a method implemented using a controller to prevent motion sickness. Specifically, see [0049]-[0050] regarding step S103 wherein it is determined that the vehicle speed is greater than a threshold speed. See also [0053] regarding step S106 where, if the speed is greater than the threshold speed, the controller issues a warning indicating the potential for motion sickness due to “high speed” driving.). Since Kobayashi, as applied to Wan in the rejection of claim 1, teaches motion sickness prevention system to be active only when the vehicle speed in greater than a threshold speed, the system will stop the motion sickness prevention measures when the speed is below the threshold speed and decelerate as normal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle for mitigation of motion sickness based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration of Wan by incorporating teaching of Kobayashi and Osborn such that the motion sickness prevention system activates when the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed and a soft-stop routine generates a deceleration profile when below a threshold brake effort, i.e. brake pedal distance threshold, and exits the soft-stop routine when above the threshold.
The motivation to activate motion sickness prevention system when a vehicle exceeds a threshold speed is that, as indicated by Kobayashi, this would allow for a passenger and occupants of the vehicle to be aware and prevent motion sickness without having to constantly look forward unlike a driver who may not be affected due to being aware of constant changes while looking forward (see [0003] and [0006]).
The motivation to have a soft-stop routine to generate a deceleration profile when brake effort, i.e. brake pedal distance, is below a threshold and exits the soft-stop routine when above the threshold is that, as indicated by Osborn, this would allow for elimination of a hard stop that will lead to jolt or jerk that is displeasing to passengers and driver traveling in a vehicle without having to rely on driver’s actions of applying right amount of force on a brake pedal (see [0007] and [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle control device of claim 13,
wherein the controller is further configured to control the vehicle to decelerate based on one of multiple deceleration torque profiles that have been generated to have different degrees of deceleration torque control depending on at least one among a sensitivity of the passenger to deceleration and a driving mode of the vehicle (see Wan [0057]-[0058] where a storage device 118 has available options of driving profile, including a less aggressive driving profile 140. To mitigate motion sickness, a motion sickness value (MSV) is calculated using input from sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 and then a level of modification, or options, from the storage device 118 can be selected depending on the MSV value or as preferred.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle control device of claim 13,
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine an acceleration torque gain value when the vehicle is accelerating in the high-speed driving situation (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan et al. claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration.); and
generate the acceleration torque profile, based on the determined acceleration torque gain value (see Wan [0058] where vehicle performance signal 174 controls actuator system 30 to modify the response of an accelerator actuator 70; see also Wan claim 6 where accelerometer of a vehicle monitors acceleration and provide a vehicle state signal, which can be used to mitigate motion sickness, i.e. control and/or modify acceleration/deceleration. Also, note [0039] indicates that accelerator system 45, which encompasses accelerator actuator 70 and propulsion system 44, can both accelerate and decelerate the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle control device of claim 18,
wherein the controller is further configured to control the vehicle to accelerate based on one of multiple acceleration torque profiles that have been generated to have different degrees of acceleration torque control depending on at least one among a sensitivity of the passenger to acceleration and a driving mode of the vehicle (see Wan [0057]-[0058] where a storage device 118 has available options of driving profile, which includes a less aggressive driving profile 140. To mitigate motion sickness, a motion sickness value (MSV) is calculated using input from sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensors 82 and then a level of modification, or options, from the storage device 118 can be selected depending on the MSV value or as preferred.).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle control device of claim 13,
wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine an acceleration demand torque based on the vehicle's speed to follow the acceleration torque profile (see Wan [0040] and Fig. 2 where controller 28 is connected to both speed sensors 84 and an accelerator actuator 70. These are communicatively coupled to control vehicle operations or features such as acceleration, i.e. acceleration based on vehicle speed; see also Wan [0058] and Fig. 5 where mitigation module 138 provides vehicle performance signal 174 to control the actuator system 30 to modify the response of the accelerator actuator 70.); and
control the vehicle to accelerate based on the acceleration demand torque until the vehicle's speed is equal to or higher than a predetermined third reference speed (see Kobayashi Fig. 2 and [0049]-[0050] regarding step S103 wherein it is determined that a vehicle speed is greater than a threshold speed; see further [0053] regarding step S106 where, if the speed is greater than the threshold speed, the controller issues a warning indicating the potential for motion sickness due to “high speed” driving. Since Kobayashi, as applied to Wan in the rejection of claim 13, teaches performing the mitigation only when the vehicle speed is above a threshold, the mitigation in the combined Wan/Kobayashi system/method would operate only after the speed threshold is reached. Therefore, accelerator demand torque at speeds below the threshold would be directly applied to accelerate the vehicle with no mitigation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify control of a vehicle for mitigation of motion sickness based on a torque profile generated to reduce a passenger’s feeling of acceleration or deceleration of Wan by incorporating teaching of Kobayashi such that the motion sickness prevention system activates when the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed.
The motivation to activate motion sickness prevention system when a vehicle exceeds a threshold speed is that, as indicated by Kobayashi, this would allow for a passenger and occupants of the vehicle to be aware and prevent motion sickness without having to constantly look forward unlike a driver who may not be affected due to being aware of constant changes while looking forward (see [0003] and [0006]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wan in view of Kobayashi and Osborn teaches the vehicle driving control method of claim 1,
wherein the deceleration torque profile and the acceleration torque profile are each generated with a delayed initial torque variation compared to a preconfigured default torque profile (see Wan [0051] where during an early negative step 214, motion sickness is not predicted, but monitored with sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensor 82, i.e. driving in preconfigured torque profile. See also in [0053], [0057]-[0058], where a motion sickness value is calculated using input from sensors such as acceleration/deceleration sensors 82, then used to determine positive motion sickness value to proceed to motion sickness mitigation step 218 where a less aggressive driving profile 140 involving response of accelerator actuator 70 and brake actuator 76 can be selected, i.e. delayed/slowed torque variation.).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Askeland (US 10053088B1), teaches a control system that uses internal sensors, an imager, and an image interpreter to determine occupancy of a vehicle and maneuver the vehicle at a lower threshold speed and acceleration to prevent discomfort or damage to cargo.
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661