DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/23/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 11-12 and 14; and canceled claim 10. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-14 are pending and are examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/23/2026 obviate the claim objections — accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/23/2026 have been fully 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.
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.
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 limitations are: “an identification part that identifies” and “an output part that outputs” in claims 1, 12 and 14 (with dependent claims 2–11 and 13, respectively to claims 1 and 12).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: CPU 12 (See at least PGPUB, ¶ 26 and FIG. 3.)
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Custer et al. (US20170217435A1; “Custer”) in view of Gaither et al. (US20190049260A1; “Gaither”) and in view of Chutorash (US20180237009A1; “Chutorash”).
As to claim 1, Custer discloses an electronic device comprising:
an identification part that identifies a plurality of speed limits that differ depending on different classes of vehicle of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, when the identification part recognizes characters indicating a speed on each of the plurality of speed limits signs installed at a same position, each speed limit sign including (i) characters indicating a speed and (ii) an auxiliary sign that indicates gross weight range of a vehicle, even when the identification part cannot recognize characters of the auxiliary sign indicating gross weight range of a vehicle (“If two (2) or more speed limits are posted on the sign 26 (see, for example, the sign 26 i in FIG. 3) and if more than one of the posted speed limits are above a predetermined threshold speed limit (e.g., 23 mph), it is assumed a first of the posted speed limits is for a certain type of vehicle and a second of the posted speed limits is for a second type of vehicle …. In the illustrated embodiment, the first type of vehicle is a passenger car, and the second type of vehicle is for trucks (e.g., vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 lbs. (2 tons)).” ¶ 20 and FIG. 3. “The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger care type or a heavy vehicle type (e.g., a truck at least 26,000 lbs. or 13 tons). In a step 136, if the vehicle type is a passenger car, the controller 20 assigns the higher (e.g., highest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit; otherwise if the vehicle type is a heavy vehicle (e.g., truck), the controller 20 assigns the lower (e.g., lowest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit (e.g., the actual speed limit).” ¶ 22. Note: The foregoing can be performed even without recognition of characters of the auxiliary sign indicating gross weight range of a vehicle as the foregoing does not explicitly set forth that said character recognition is required.); and
an output part that outputs a first speed limit among the plurality of speed limits as an applied speed limit when the gross weight stored in the storage is equal to or greater than a threshold, and outputs a second speed limit that is higher than the first speed limit among the plurality of speed limits as the applied speed limit when the gross weight is not equal to or greater than the threshold, the output part outputting the applied speed limit to a speed controller for controlling the speed of the vehicle (“The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger care type or a heavy vehicle type (e.g., a truck at least 26,000 lbs. or 13 tons). In a step 136, if the vehicle type is a passenger car, the controller 20 assigns the higher (e.g., highest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit; otherwise if the vehicle type is a heavy vehicle (e.g., truck), the controller 20 assigns the lower (e.g., lowest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit (e.g., the actual speed limit).” ¶ 22. “In a step 144, the controller 20 transmits at least one signal to speed control components on the vehicle 10 for controlling a speed of the vehicle 10 to be within the predetermined range over the warning threshold.” ¶ 24.).
Custer fails to explicitly disclose: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle.
Nevertheless, Gaither teaches: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle (“A load may include a weight or mass of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 29.).
Custer discloses: identifying multiple speed limits and associated auxiliary signs from a posted speed limit sign; and outputting a corresponding speed limit according to a vehicle’s weight either meeting/exceeding a threshold or otherwise. Gaither teaches: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Custer to include the feature of: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle, as taught by Gaither, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) it is well-known in the art that a vehicle may store its mass for control processing; and (2) this feature is useful for controlling a vehicle’s speed in consideration of a relationship between a vehicle’s mass and a posted speed limit.
The combination of Custer and Gaither fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the identification part identifies, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, the output part outputs an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits.
Nevertheless, Chutorash teaches: identifying, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, outputting an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits (“It is anticipated that the on-board map data from on-board map 18 may be a primary source for determining what a speed limit is for the road that the vehicle 12 is currently travelling on. … [T]he camera 28 may provide real time images to the IDSLS 10 which enable the processor 14 to determine (or confirm) a posted speed limit for the road that the vehicle 12 is travelling on. … For example, the camera 28 may detect a speed limit sign when road construction is present giving a reduced speed limit of 25 mph on a road that otherwise has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. … In such instances where two conflicting speed limits are provided to the IDSLS 10, the IDSLS may select the lower of the two.” ¶ 16.).
Custer discloses: identifying multiple speed limits and associated auxiliary signs from a posted speed limit sign; and outputting a corresponding speed limit according to a vehicle’s weight either meeting/exceeding a threshold or otherwise. Gaither teaches: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle. Chutorash teaches: when an applied speed limit based on a plurality of map speed limits does not match an applied speed limit based on a plurality of actual speed limits captured by image data, outputting the lower of the two.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Custer and Gaither to include the feature of: identifying, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, outputting an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, as taught by Chutorash, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “a dynamic manner of modifying a speed limiting operation on a motor vehicle.” (Chutorash, ¶ 28.)
Independent claim 14 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 2, Custer discloses: wherein the first speed limit is a lowest speed limit among the plurality of speed limits (“In one example, the sign 26 i includes three (3) speed limits (e.g., a default speed limit of 70 mph, a speed limit of 65 mph for trucks (over 13 tons), and a minimum speed limit of 45 mph).” Emphasis added; ¶ 21 and FIG. 3.).
As to claim 3, Custer discloses: the first speed limit is the lowest speed limit among the plurality of speed limits excluding a minimum speed limit of the road on which the vehicle is traveling, if the plurality of speed limits include the minimum speed limit (“In one example, the sign 26 i includes three (3) speed limits (e.g., a default speed limit of 70 mph, a speed limit of 65 mph for trucks (over 13 tons), and a minimum speed limit of 45 mph).” Emphasis added; ¶ 21 and FIG. 3.).
As to claim 4, Custer discloses: the second speed limit is a lowest speed limit among the plurality of speed limits (“In one example, the sign 26 i includes three (3) speed limits (e.g., a default speed limit of 70 mph, a speed limit of 65 mph for trucks (over 13 tons), and a minimum speed limit of 45 mph).” Emphasis added; ¶ 21 and FIG. 3.).
As to claim 5, Custer discloses: the output part causes the display apparatus of the vehicle to display the applied speed limit by outputting the applied speed limit to the display apparatus of the vehicle (“The notifier 32 includes a display screen 34 displaying a speed limit sign 36 showing the identified (e.g., actual) speed limit.” ¶ 24 and FIG. 4.)
As to claim 8, Custer discloses: the identification part identifies, as the plurality of speed limits, at least one of a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized based on captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle (“The camera 22 transmits signals indicative of the image of the sign 26, in a step 112, to the controller 20.” ¶ 18. See also ¶ 20 discussing how a sign 26 may comprise “two (2) or more speed limits.”).
As to claim 9, Custer discloses: the identification part identifies at least one of the plurality of actual speed limits as the plurality of speed limits without performing character recognition on an auxiliary sign that indicates a class of vehicle (“The camera 22 transmits signals indicative of the image of the sign 26, in a step 112, to the controller 20.” ¶ 18. See also ¶ 20 discussing how a sign 26 may comprise “two (2) or more speed limits.” Note: The foregoing does not require the performance of character recognition on an auxiliary sign to identify an actual speed limit.).
As to claim 13, Custer discloses: a vehicle including the electronic device according to claim 1 (“vehicle 10” - ¶ 18 and FIG. 1.).
Claim 7 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Custer in view of Gaither and in view of Chutorash as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Inoue et al. (US20160347313A1; “Inoue”).
As to claim 7, the combination of Custer, Gaither and Chutorash fails to explicitly disclose: the output part notifies the speed controller to control a speed of the vehicle on the basis of the applied speed limit when the output part receives approval from a driver of the vehicle after displaying the applied speed limit on a display apparatus of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Inoue teaches: notifying a speed controller to control a speed of the vehicle on the basis of an applied speed limit upon receiving approval from a driver of the vehicle after displaying the applied speed limit on a display apparatus of the vehicle (“The confirmation display control unit 601 displays a confirmation display screen when a setting candidate of the speed limit value is indicated by the reliability determination unit 303, to have the driver confirm that the speed limit value currently set will be switched to the indicated setting candidate of the speed limit value.” See at least ¶ 106.).
Custer discloses: identifying multiple speed limits and associated auxiliary signs from a posted speed limit sign; and outputting a corresponding speed limit according to a vehicle’s weight either meeting/exceeding a threshold or otherwise. Gaither teaches: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle. Chutorash teaches: when an applied speed limit based on a plurality of map speed limits does not match an applied speed limit based on a plurality of actual speed limits captured by image data, outputting the lower of the two. Inoue teaches: controlling a speed of a vehicle to an applied speed limit upon receiving approval from a driver through a display apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Custer, Gaither and Chutorash to include the feature of: notifying a speed controller to control a speed of the vehicle on the basis of an applied speed limit upon receiving approval from a driver of the vehicle after displaying the applied speed limit on a display apparatus of the vehicle, as taught by Inoue, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for performing vehicle control in line with a driver’s desire, hence enhancing safety and user satisfaction.
Claim 11 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Custer in view of Gaither and in view of Chutorash as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Maurer et al. (US20180194413A1; “Maurer”)
As to claim 11, Custer discloses: the output part outputs
storing a weight threshold (“The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger care type or a heavy vehicle type (e.g., a truck at least 26,000 lbs. or 13 tons).” Emphasis added; ¶ 22.).
a second lowest speed limit among three speed limits corresponding to three signs as the applied speed limit when the gross weight of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a weight threshold (“If two (2) or more speed limits are posted on the sign 26 (see, for example, the sign 26 i in FIG. 3) and if more than one of the posted speed limits are above a predetermined threshold speed limit (e.g., 23 mph), it is assumed a first of the posted speed limits is for a certain type of vehicle and a second of the posted speed limits is for a second type of vehicle …. In the illustrated embodiment, the first type of vehicle is a passenger car, and the second type of vehicle is for trucks (e.g., vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 lbs. (2 tons)).” ¶ 20 and FIG. 3. “The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger care type or a heavy vehicle type (e.g., a truck at least 26,000 lbs. or 13 tons). In a step 136, if the vehicle type is a passenger car, the controller 20 assigns the higher (e.g., highest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit; otherwise if the vehicle type is a heavy vehicle (e.g., truck), the controller 20 assigns the lower (e.g., lowest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit (e.g., the actual speed limit).” ¶ 22.); and
a highest speed limit among the three speed limits as the applied speed limit when the gross weight of the vehicle is less than the weight threshold (See at least ¶¶ 20, 22 and FIG. 3.).
Custer fails to explicitly disclose: outputting the lowest speed limit among three speed limits corresponding to three signs as the applied speed limit when the gross weight of the vehicle is equal to or greater than the first weight threshold.
Nevertheless, the limitation would have been obvious in view of Custer. Recall that Custer discloses three speed limits: a highest one for “lighter” passenger cars, a second lowest one for “trucks” having a weight of at least “13 tons” and a minimum speed limit. (See mapping supra.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Custer to add a further (e.g., an equivalent “first”) weight threshold associated with the minimum speed to arrive at the claimed limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because such would constitute a mere duplication of a known feature in a predictable fashion. Such would be useful to enhance safety for vehicles by more appropriately associating lower speeds with higher vehicle weights as already contemplated by Custer.
The combination of Custer, Gaither and Chutorash fails to explicitly disclose: the storage stores a first weight threshold and a second weight threshold smaller than the first weight threshold.
Nevertheless, Maurer teaches: a storage storing a weight threshold (“The method comprising the steps of storing a vehicle mass threshold on a memory.” See at least ¶ 7.).
Custer discloses: identifying multiple speed limits and associated auxiliary signs from a posted speed limit sign; and outputting a corresponding speed limit according to a vehicle’s weight either meeting/exceeding a threshold or otherwise. Gaither teaches: a storage that stores a gross weight of a vehicle. Chutorash teaches: when an applied speed limit based on a plurality of map speed limits does not match an applied speed limit based on a plurality of actual speed limits captured by image data, outputting the lower of the two. Maurer teaches: a storage storing a weight threshold
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Custer, Gaither and Chutorash to include the feature of: a storage storing a weight threshold, as taught by Maurer, with a reasonable expectation of success because (1) this feature is useful for performing control functions in relation to a vehicle’s load; and (2) the successful operation of Custer would require that its weight thresholds are accessible via memory – Maurer provides the explicit teaching that such is possible. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to duplicate Maurer’s stored weight threshold for at least the same reasons as it would have been obvious to duplicate Custer’s weight threshold — that is, such would constitute a mere duplication of a known feature in a predictable fashion.
Claim 12 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Custer in view of Ludwick et al. (US20190285425A1; “Ludwick”) and in view of Chutorash.
As to claim 12, Custer discloses: an electronic device comprising:
an identification part that identifies a plurality of speed limits that differ depending on different classes of vehicle of a road on which the vehicle is traveling, when the identification part recognizes characters indicating a speed on each of the plurality of speed limits signs installed at a same position, each speed limit sign including (i) characters indicating a speed and (ii) an auxiliary sign that indicates gross weight range of a vehicle, even when the identification part cannot recognize characters of the auxiliary sign indicating gross weight range of a vehicle (“If two (2) or more speed limits are posted on the sign 26 (see, for example, the sign 26 i in FIG. 3) and if more than one of the posted speed limits are above a predetermined threshold speed limit (e.g., 23 mph), it is assumed a first of the posted speed limits is for a certain type of vehicle and a second of the posted speed limits is for a second type of vehicle …. In the illustrated embodiment, the first type of vehicle is a passenger car, and the second type of vehicle is for trucks (e.g., vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 lbs. (2 tons)).” ¶ 20 and FIG. 3. “The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger care type or a heavy vehicle type (e.g., a truck at least 26,000 lbs. or 13 tons). In a step 136, if the vehicle type is a passenger car, the controller 20 assigns the higher (e.g., highest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit; otherwise if the vehicle type is a heavy vehicle (e.g., truck), the controller 20 assigns the lower (e.g., lowest) of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit (e.g., the actual speed limit).” ¶ 22. Note: The foregoing can be performed even without recognition of characters of the auxiliary sign indicating gross weight range of a vehicle as the foregoing does not explicitly set forth that said character recognition is required.); and
an output part that outputs a first speed limit among the plurality of speed limits as an applied speed limit when the passenger capacity stored in the storage is equal to or greater than a threshold, and outputting a second speed limit among the plurality of speed limits as the applied speed limit when the passenger capacity is not equal to or greater than a threshold (“The vehicle 10 may be of a passenger [car] type or a heavy vehicle type …. In a step 136, if the vehicle type is a passenger car, the controller 20 assigns the higher … of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit; otherwise if the vehicle type is a heavy vehicle (e.g., truck), the controller 20 assigns the lower … of the possible speed limits as the posted (e.g., identified) speed limit (e.g., the actual speed limit).” See at least ¶ 22. Note: Identifying a vehicle as either a passenger car or a heavy vehicle analogizes to identifying whether the passenger capacity of a vehicle matches a threshold as a passenger car is associated with a higher passenger capacity than a heavy vehicle. In other words, a passenger car’s passenger capacity would be equal to a threshold for an associated passenger capacity of the passenger car, whereas a heavy truck’s passenger capacity would necessarily be lower than the threshold required to be considered a passenger car.).
Custer fails to explicitly disclose: a storage that stores a passenger capacity of a vehicle.
Nevertheless, Ludwick teaches: a storage that stores a passenger capacity of a vehicle (“Computing devices 110 of vehicle 100 may have its vehicle type saved in data 134 of memory 130, such as that it is an electric autonomous sedan having a passenger capacity of five.” See at least ¶ 58.).
Custer teaches: outputting a corresponding speed limit based on whether the passenger capacity of the vehicle meets a threshold. Ludwick teaches: a storage that stores a passenger capacity of a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Custer with the feature of: a storage that stores a passenger capacity of a vehicle, as taught by Ludwick, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that vehicles store data about their own characteristics, including passenger capacity.
The combination of Custer and Ludwick fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the identification part identifies, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, the output part outputs an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits.
Nevertheless, Chutorash teaches: identifying, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, outputting an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits (“It is anticipated that the on-board map data from on-board map 18 may be a primary source for determining what a speed limit is for the road that the vehicle 12 is currently travelling on. … [T]he camera 28 may provide real time images to the IDSLS 10 which enable the processor 14 to determine (or confirm) a posted speed limit for the road that the vehicle 12 is travelling on. … For example, the camera 28 may detect a speed limit sign when road construction is present giving a reduced speed limit of 25 mph on a road that otherwise has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. … In such instances where two conflicting speed limits are provided to the IDSLS 10, the IDSLS may select the lower of the two.” ¶ 16.).
Custer teaches: outputting a corresponding speed limit based on whether the passenger capacity of the vehicle meets a threshold. Ludwick teaches: a storage that stores a passenger capacity of a vehicle. Chutorash teaches: when an applied speed limit based on a plurality of map speed limits does not match an applied speed limit based on a plurality of actual speed limits captured by image data, outputting the lower of the two.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Custer and Ludwick to include the feature of: identifying, as the plurality of speed limits, both (i) a plurality of map speed limits indicated by map data of a road on which the vehicle is traveling and (ii) a plurality of actual speed limits indicated by a plurality of speed limit signs recognized on the basis of captured image data generated during traveling of the vehicle, and when the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits does not match the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, outputting an applied speed limit lower of (i) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of map speed limits and (ii) the applied speed limit based on the plurality of actual speed limits, as taught by Chutorash, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing “a dynamic manner of modifying a speed limiting operation on a motor vehicle.” (Chutorash, ¶ 28.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights