DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/15/2023 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 2/17/2021.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 5-7, 9, and 13 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended.
Claim 15 has been added.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, and 14-15 will be examined below.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 3/11/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 3/11/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-FINAL Office Action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims no longer contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has several terms that are unclear and make the metes and bounds of the claims unclear, thus indefinite. First, there are multiple limitations that state “enabled” and “disabled” and what is exactly meant is unclear. Does this mean currently “on” or currently “off” or does this mean “allowed” and “not allowed”? For example, the limitations “and setting information data indicating whether a current setting state of each of a plurality of situation assistance processes is enabled” is unclear cause it requires “Each of the plurality of assistance processes to be enabled”, thus are they are working, not working, possible to work, or what? Further, the following limitation add further unclarity as it states “determine whether the current setting state of at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes is disabled by referring to the setting information data of the storage” and ““processes, and the second condition is that the current setting state is determined to be disabled” yet we just determined if the states were enabled. So are we determing each state is enabled or each state is disabled? Finally, how they can be for both and how can this be for “each”? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this, as best understood by the specification, and it appears that the claims are searching for what modes are available, what are not, then selecting the best mode that matches. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 states “determine whether a logical product of the first condition and the second condition is true based on a determination of whether the first condition and the second condition has been satisfied” and the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear thus indefinite. First, what is “a logical product”? Is this a required formula, a known value, or is this merely a statement that means uses both the first and second condition? When looking into the specification, it is increasing unclear what would and what would not read on this. In computing it is usually 1 and 0, but with these variables, it is unclear if what would be the 1 or 0, and further how being disabled and matching is being attributed or combined. As currently presented, the metes and bounds of this limitations are unclear thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as use of two variables, one of matching and one of possible scenarios as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 states “acquire a value of a traveling situation variable that is a variable indicating a traveling situation” and later states “wherein the first condition is that a value of a variable indicating the traveling situation matches with the traveling situation associated with the at least one of the plurality of situation assistance” and this term “value” appears to either have naming issues or antecedent issues. As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus Claim 1 is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as antecedent issues, and will interpret this as “the value”. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1
Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claim 15 states “wherein the value of the variable indicating the traveling situation includes at least one of a value indicating an entrance of an expressway specified by the map data, a value indicating a snowy road specified by the image data, or a value indicating a parking lot specified by the image data” and as currently presented, it unclear thus indefinite. First, the use of the same variable name “the value” and “a value” makes the claims confusing and indefinite. Second, it is unclear how the value of the variable indicating the travelling situation is a value? Is this based on the first condition where the value is based on matching the situations and the processes or would just having any value read on this? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds, what is being carried out, and what variables are being used, thus are indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as value that corresponds to an expressway, snowy road, or parking lot, since these are the example given in Claim 15. The Office strongly suggests amending what is being compared and what the value is for proper understanding and analysis. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-4, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chintakindi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0034678) in view of McGee et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0035337).
With respect to Claim 1: While Chintakindi discloses “A driving assistance apparatus for assisting driving of a vehicle” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (engaging one or more automated driving functions)];
“the driving assistance apparatus comprising: a storage configured to store association data” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0038-0039 and 0130 (e.g., databases)];
“and setting information data indicating whether a current setting state of each of a plurality of situation assistance processes is enabled” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0035, 0037-0039, and 0130-0148 (a database of risk values associated with stored historical road frustration index values to assist in identifying and presenting alternate low-risk travel routes) and (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
“a computer” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0037-0039 and 0130 (a personal navigation device, a vehicle, a mobile device, and/or a personal computing device)];
“wherein the association data associates a plurality of traveling situations with a plurality of situation assistance processes” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
“each situation assistance process is a driving assistance process for a specific traveling situation” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
“the computer is configured to: acquire a value of a traveling situation variable that is a variable indicating a traveling situation of the vehicle among the plurality of traveling situations” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
“the traveling situation being specified at a current position by image data acquired by an in-vehicle camera or map data” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0049, 0059, 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (the travel route of the vehicle and the current location of the vehicle may be determined based on a GPS application executing on the mobile phone, the weather conditions may be determined by querying a weather database using the current location, and the like)];
“determine whether the current setting state of at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes is disabled by referring to the setting information data of the storage” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
determine whether a first condition and a second condition has been satisfied” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
wherein the first condition is that a value of a variable indicating the traveling situation matches with the traveling situation associated with the at least one of the plurality of situation assistance” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
“processes, and the second condition is that the current setting state is determined to be disabled” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0035, 0037-0039, and 0130-0148 (a database of risk values associated with stored historical road frustration index values to assist in identifying and presenting alternate low-risk travel routes) and (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
“determine whether a logical product of the first condition and the second condition is true based on a determination of whether the first condition and the second condition has been satisfied” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0040 and 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The threshold may be a threshold associated with engaging one or more autonomous driving algorithms. The threshold may be based on the vehicle and/or the driver of the vehicle. For example, a threshold may be based on the degree with which an autonomous driving algorithm takes over aspects of a driving task, such as a relatively simple autonomous driving algorithm (e.g., a lane-keeping algorithm) might be associated with a lower threshold as compared to an algorithm that takes over substantially all aspects of the driving task the threshold may be based on a particular road segment traveled by the vehicle. Different road segments may be associated with different thresholds. For example, the threshold for frustration may on a city road may be different from the threshold for frustration on a country road The threshold may be based on a plurality of drivers on the road segment. For example, the threshold may be based on the number of drivers or level of vehicle density or congestion on a road segment. Additionally or alternatively, determining whether the driver frustration level satisfies a threshold may comprise determining whether a plurality of driver frustration levels (e.g., corresponding to a plurality of different drivers on the same road segment) satisfy a threshold (e.g., for the road segment). As yet another example, determining whether the frustration level satisfies the threshold may comprise determining that a road frustration index value of a road segment (e.g., a road segment currently traveled by a vehicle, a road segment predicted to be traveled by the vehicle sometime in the future) satisfies the threshold or another threshold (e.g., a route-specific threshold, a threshold for specific roads, or the like)];
“determine whether to propose at least one of the plurality of situation
assistance processes to a driver of the vehicle in response to the value of the traveling situation variable with respect to the association data” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0038-0039 and 0130-0148 (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
“operate a human interface to propose, to the driver of the vehicle, at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes according to the association data based on the value of the traveling situation variable” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
“and when detecting that the driver has approved a proposal of the at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes via the human interface” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
“enable a setting of an approved situation assistance process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (The prompt may comprise, for example, a request for approval to engage one or more autonomous driving algorithms, an indication of the frustration level of the user and a recommendation to use calming strategies, a prompt checking in to inquire as to the frustration level of the driver, information about a road segment currently traveled or projected to be traveled by the vehicle, or the like)];
Chintakindi does not specifically checking for enabled or disabled, rather measured variables, and offers possible automated assisted processes, thus only allowed and currently not used processes would be offered.
McGee, which is also a vehicle control system that switches automated control processes of vehicles teaches “and setting information data indicating whether a current setting state of each of a plurality of situation assistance processes is enabled” [McGee, ¶ 0040 and 0052 (the controller to store information indicating the current mode of operation (e.g., in memory 240). Accordingly, the controller may determine the current mode of operation based on the information stored (e.g., in memory 240))];
“determine whether the current setting state of at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes is disabled by referring to the setting information data of the storage” [McGee, ¶ 0040 and 0052 (the controller to store information indicating the current mode of operation (e.g., in memory 240). Accordingly, the controller may determine the current mode of operation based on the information stored (e.g., in memory 240)];
“processes, and the second condition is that the current setting state is determined to be disabled” [McGee, ¶ 0040 and 0052 (the controller to store information indicating the current mode of operation (e.g., in memory 240). Accordingly, the controller may determine the current mode of operation based on the information stored (e.g., in memory 240)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of McGee into the invention of Chintakindi to not only include data measuring vehicle dynamics, traffic, weather, mood of user, preferences, and weights to help control a vehicle based on a user prompt as Chintakindi discloses but explicitly store the current mode the vehicle is in as taught by McGee with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art McGee into Chintakindi to create a more robust system that account for many kinds of vehicle dynamics. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control based on a user’s inputs and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to: enable a predetermined situation assistance process among the plurality of situation assistance processes when the value of the traveling situation variable indicates a predetermined situation” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0134];
“inquire of the driver whether to disable the predetermined situation assistance process when the value of the traveling situation variable does not indicate the predetermined situation after the predetermined situation assistance process is enabled” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“disable the predetermined situation assistance process when the driver provides an instruction for disabling the predetermined situation assistance process according to an inquiry result” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and continue an enabled setting of the predetermined situation assistance process that has been enabled, when the driver does not provide the instruction according to the inquiry result” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9].
With respect to Claim 3: Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each situation assistance process is a process of executing a combination of a plurality of function unit assistance processes” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“the plurality of function unit assistance processes have a plurality of types” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“each function unit assistance process is a process of executing a function for assisting the driving of the vehicle” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and in each of the plurality of function unit assistance processes, at least one of an electronic unit that is an operation target, an input signal, or an output calculation for an input is respectively different from another function unit assistance process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and the situation assistance process enables or disables the plurality of function unit assistance processes having the plurality of types according to the specific traveling situation” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9].
With respect to Claim 4: Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of function unit assistance processes include at least two of: a forward approach warning process of issuing a warning when an obstacle exists in front of the vehicle; an emergency brake process of applying a braking force to the vehicle when the obstacle exists in front of the vehicle; a center trace process of controlling the vehicle to travel in a center of a vehicle lane; a deviation warning process of issuing a warning when the vehicle deviates from the vehicle lane; a lane deviation prevention assistance process of operating a wheel turning actuator to return the vehicle to the vehicle lane when the vehicle deviates from the vehicle lane; a wobble warning process of issuing a warning indicating that the vehicle wobbles when the vehicle wobbles with respect to the vehicle lane and travels; a rear vehicle warning process of issuing a warning indicating that the vehicle is likely to collide with a rear vehicle positioned in a rear of the vehicle; a rear vehicle assistance process of operating the wheel-turning actuator to avoid a situation of colliding with the rear vehicle when the situation exists; an auto high-low beam process of switching a headlight between high beam and low beam; a cruise control process; a backward traveling warning process of issuing a warning when the vehicle goes backward and an obstacle exists in an advancing direction of the vehicle; or a backward traveling avoidance process of applying the braking force to the vehicle when the vehicle goes backward and the obstacle exists in the advancing direction of the vehicle” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9].
With respect to Claim 10: Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the computer is further configured to: accept an input by the driver for performing a setting of either enabling or disabling the driving assistance process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“store an accepted setting in the storage; and enable or disable each function unit assistance process according to the setting stored in the storage” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“even when, at a start of a trip, a state of a function unit assistance process is indicated by the situation assistance process that has been enabled from an end of a previous trip and is different from the setting stored in the storage” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9].
With respect to Claim 11: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-4 and 10. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 11 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 1-4 and 10. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 12: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1-4 and 10. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 12 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 1-4 and 10. Therefore Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 14: Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the value of the traveling situation variable indicates whether to propose the at least one of the plurality of situation assistance processes” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9].
With respect to Claim 15: While Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the value of the variable indicating the traveling situation includes at least one of a value indicating an entrance of an expressway specified by the map data, a value indicating a snowy road specified by the image data, or a value indicating a parking lot specified by the image data” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9 (engaging one or more automated driving functions)];
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chintakindi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0034678) in view of McGee et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0035337) and in further view of Su et al. (United States Patent 10,466,717).
With respect to Claim 8: While Chintakindi discloses “The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the situation assistance process includes, in addition to an assistance process for the specific traveling situation, one or at least two of the plurality of function unit assistance processes an unstable situation assistance process that is a driving assistance process for coping with an unstable driving situation when a behavior of the vehicle is unstable” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“the one or at least two of the plurality of function unit assistance processes unstable situation assistance process includes a predetermined process among the plurality of function unit assistance processes” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“the computer is further configured to: detect the behavior of the vehicle” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“execute a notification process of notifying the driver that the one or at least two of the plurality of function unit assistance value situation assistance process is enabled when the behavior of the vehicle is a value” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“between enablement of the setting and the notification process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“determine whether an input operation by the driver has been performed” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and according to determination of whether the input operation by the driver has been performed, determine whether the driver has refused the enablement” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“wherein the association data is data rewritable for a state of the one or at least two of the plurality of function unit assistance processes” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“when the driver has refused the enablement, the computer maintains a state of the predetermined process, the state having been stored in the storage at a time of executing the notification process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and when the driver refuses to enable the value situation assistance process, maintain a current state of the predetermined process” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
“and when the driver does not prohibit the enablement, the computer changes the state of the one or at least two of the plurality of function unit assistance processes to an enabled state” [Chintakindi, ¶ 0130-0148 with Figure 9];
Chintakindi does not specifically state detecting unstable behavior, even though vehicle dynamics, user mood, weather (snow), and preferences are taken into account when prompting users to switch vehicle controls.
Su, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “an unstable situation assistance process that is a driving assistance process for coping with an unstable driving situation when a behavior of the vehicle is unstable” [Su, Col 4 lines 59-67 and Col 11 lines20-57];
“the execution device is further configured to: detect the behavior of the vehicle” [Su, Col 4 lines 59-67 and Col 11 lines20-57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Su into the invention of Chintakindi to not only include data measuring vehicle dynamics, traffic, weather, mood of user, preferences, and weights to help control a vehicle based on a user prompt as Chintakindi discloses but to also control a vehicle based on wobble or unstable conditions as taught by Su with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Su into Chintakindi to create a more robust system that account for many kinds of vehicle dynamics. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control based on a user’s inputs and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights