Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/541,740

UPDATING MODE PARAMETERS OF A DRIVING MODE BASED ON A LEARNABLE DRIVING PROFILE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
MUSTAFA, IMRAN K
Art Unit
3668
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
459 granted / 761 resolved
+8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§103
61.8%
+21.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 761 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Sata (US 2019/0111925) in view of McCormick (US 2021/0300365) As to claim 1 Sata discloses a system comprising: control circuitry configured to: receive sensor information comprising operational parameters associated with a vehicle and ambient information associated with an environment outside the vehicle (Paragraph 21 “That is, the vehicle 102 may be self-maneuvering and navigate without human input. An autonomous vehicle may use one or more sensors and/or a navigation unit to drive autonomously.”, Paragraph 25 “A service provider may provide navigational map, weather and/or traffic data to the vehicle 102.”); determine a driving profile associated with a user of the vehicle based on the sensor information (Paragraph 63 “The adjusted driving mode may be further adjusted based on driving history. This may further tailor the driving mode chosen for the driver based on the particular location. In some embodiments, the driving history may be a driving history of the driver”); select a driving mode associated with the vehicle (Paragraph 23 “The input unit 104 may be used to switch between various driving modes or to navigate between menu screens of a user interface. The input unit 104 may also be used to input a driving mode sensitivity preference of the driver. The driving mode sensitivity preference may be a preference of the driver for a more aggressive or less aggressive driving mode.”); update values of mode parameters associated with the selected driving mode based on the driving profile (Paragraph 61-62 “When the driving mode sensitivity, as indicated by the driver, is a less aggressive driving mode, the initial driving mode of the normal driving mode may be adjusted to a comfort driving mode. When the driving mode sensitivity, as indicated by the driver, is a neutral driving mode, the initial driving mode of the normal driving mode may be kept as the normal driving mode. The ECU 106 automatically adjusts the operation of the vehicle based on the adjusted driving mode by adjusting at least one of a suspension, a throttle sensitivity, shift points, an air conditioning usage, a traction control, and/or a stability control (step 512). For example, when the comfort driving mode is detected as the adjusted driving mode, the suspension 130 is set to a loose setting, the throttle control 132 is set to low sensitivity, the shift control 134 is set to standard shift points, the AC control 136 is set to standard usage, the traction control 138 is set to active, and the stability control 140 is set to active.”); and control, via at least one electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle, a plurality of functional components of the vehicle based on the updated values (Paragraph 63 “The adjusted driving mode may be further adjusted based on driving history. This may further tailor the driving mode chosen for the driver based on the particular location. In some embodiments, the driving history may be a driving history of the driver. In some situations, the driver may adjust the driving mode manually after the system automatically determines and implements a particular driving mode. For example, the driver may indicate a less aggressive driving mode preference, but at a particular freeway entrance, the driver may wish to use sport mode. When the driver reaches the particular freeway entrance, the driver may manually switch the automatically determined normal mode or comfort mode into sport mode via the input unit 104. The ECU 106 may store each instance where the driver manually adjusted the driving mode to a particular driving mode, and use the particular manually chosen adjusted mode in the future. The driver's manual driving mode adjustment may be stored in memory 128. The manual driving mode adjustment may be referenced according to geographic location, such as by latitude and longitude coordinates.”). Sata does not explicitly discloses detect an execution of a cruise control operation for a duration of a movement of the vehicle; pause, based on the detection, the update of the values of mode parameters for the duration McCormick teaches a system wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: detect an execution of a cruise control operation for a duration of a movement of the vehicle(Paragraph 28 “In such embodiments, the one or more input mechanisms of the human machine interface 155 may include one or more input mechanisms positioned on a steering wheel of the vehicle 105, such as buttons associated with setting adaptive cruise control (for example, a “+ACC” button and a “−ACC” button).”); and pause the update of the values of mode parameters for the duration(Paragraph 27 “The human machine interface 155 also includes one or more input mechanisms, such as one or more user-selectable buttons, knobs, sliders, and the like, for receiving input from the user of the vehicle 105. For example, a user of the vehicle 105 may use the one or more input mechanisms of the human machine interface 155 to activate/deactivate the advanced driver assistance driving system 220, activate/deactivate a mode for the advanced driver assistance driving system 220 (for example, a learning mode), select a driver profile 215 for use with the advanced driver assistance driving system 220, provide feedback for the advanced driver assistance driving system 220, and the like.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Sata to include the teachings of pausing the update values of mode parameters for the purpose of choosing when to activate or deactivate learning of the driver assistance system for the purpose of giving the driver ability to train or tune the control parameters of the driver assist system while it is activated. As to claim 2 Sata discloses a system wherein each of the operational parameters corresponds to a functional component of the plurality of functional components (Paragraph 62). As to claim 3 Sata discloses a system wherein the plurality of functional components includes at least one of an acceleration pedal, a brake pedal, an electric power steering, a suspension system, a supplemental restraint system (SRS), or a vehicle stability assist (VSA) (Paragraph 62). As to claim 4 Sata discloses a system wherein the operational parameters associated with the vehicle comprises at least one of an acceleration pedal (AP) position of the vehicle, a master cylinder pressure associated with a brake pedal of the vehicle, a steering angle associated with an electric power steering of the vehicle, and a plurality of suspension parameters associated with a suspension system of the vehicle (Paragraph 35). As to claim 5 Sata discloses a system wherein the ambient information associated with the environment comprises at least one of a condition of a road in an active route of the vehicle, a terrain type associated with the active route, an amount of precipitation on the road, a type of the road, a weather condition for a current location of the vehicle in the active route (Paragraph 25). As to claim 6 Sata discloses a system wherein the driving profile comprises at least one of: an acceleration pedal (AP) map associated with an AP component the vehicle; a steering feedback associated with a steering component of the vehicle; tuning information associated with a suspension component of the vehicle; a level of regenerative braking associated with a braking component of the vehicle; and scene detection information associated with the environment outside the vehicle(Paragraph 34-35). As to claim 8 Sata discloses a system wherein the control circuitry is further configured to acquire historical sensor data associated with the vehicle, and wherein the driving profile is determined further based on the historical sensor data (Paragraph 63). As to claim 9 Sata discloses a system wherein the control circuitry is further configured to control a display device associated with the vehicle to render the selected driving mode, the mode parameters, and the updated values of mode parameters on a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (Paragraph 23). As to claim 11 Sata discloses a system wherein the GUI further comprises a first option to lock at least one value of the updated values of mode parameters, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: receive a selection of the first option(Paragraph 51); and ignore the update of at least one of the values of mode parameters based on the selection of the first option(Paragraph 52). As to claim 12 Sata discloses a system wherein the GUI further comprises a prompt overlay with an option to switch to a preset driving mode that is for a weather condition or a road traffic condition, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: receive a selection of the option in the prompt overlay(Paragraph 63); select the preset driving mode(Paragraph 63); and control the plurality of functional components based on values of mode parameters associated with the preset driving mode(Paragraph 63). As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1. As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6. As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 9. As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 17. As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sata (US 2019/0111925) in view of McCormick (US 2021/0300365) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tseng (US 2017/0313323) As to claim 7 Tseng teaches a system wherein the control circuitry is further configured to apply a pre-trained machine learning (ML) model on the sensor information to determine the driving profile associated with the user (Paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Sata to include the teachings of using machine learning model for the purpose of det4erming a driving profile for the user. Claims 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sata (US 2019/0111925) in view of McCormick (US 2021/0300365) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cooke (US 10,967,878) As to claim 10 Cooke teaches a system wherein the GUI comprises: a first UI element to save the updated values of mode parameters as an individual driving mode (Column 14 lines 54-67), and a second UI element to share the individual driving mode with a vehicle that is associated with a person who is different from the user(Column 14 lines 54-67). IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Sata to include the teachings of selecting different users for the purpose of having driving profiles for multiple users. As to claim 13 Cooke teaches a system wherein the GUI further comprises a slider UI element for each of the mode parameters, and each segment of a length of the slider UI element represents a range of values associated with a type of mode for a corresponding mode parameter of the selected driving mode(Column 13 lines 10-38). As to claim 14 Cooke teaches a system wherein the update of the values corresponds to a movement of an indicator along the length of the slider UI element(Column 13 lines 10-38). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14, 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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. IMRAN K. MUSTAFA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3668 /IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 11/12/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 11, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596142
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING AND CLASSIFYING DRONE SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583451
DRIVING SUPPORT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12559101
TRAVELING CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12546608
VISION-BASED LOCATION AND TURN MARKER PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12528449
STATE QUANTITY CALCULATION DEVICE, CONTROL DEVICE, AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+16.5%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 761 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month