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 filed on 7/02/2026. Claims 11-20 are pending and are examined below.
FINALITY
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/02/2026 have been fully considered.
As to claim 11, Applicant argues:
Sekine does not disclose any action performed “in response to detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section.” Applicant argues that Sekine’s step S08 determines a continuous curve only after a vehicle has passed an exit point of a first curve in S07.
Neither Sekine nor Natsumi disclose the response action as: “maintain a speed of the motor vehicle at a constant target speed value through and after passing through a first of the two turns until the vehicle is within a second of the two turns.” Natsumi’s waveform W1 in FIG. 5 indicates that the changes in velocity of the vehicle 1 within the curved path constitutes: the vehicle decelerates entering the first curve, accelerates to a constant velocity within the first curve, and then decelerates upon entering the second curve. There is no indication that the speed is maintained until the vehicle is within a second of the two turns.
Natsumi teaches away from using the relied-upon disclosure as a solution. That is, Natsumi identifies the problem that it is trying to solve as the phenomenon when a vehicle decelerates to pass through a first curved path, then accelerates by driven traveling to reach a target velocity and then decelerates again to pass through the second curved path; the object of Natsumi is to overcome this behavior. However, the relied-upon portions of Natsumi are embodiments of the identified problem. Hence, a PHOSITA would be actively discouraged from adopting the cited portions of Natsumi as a solution.
As to argument I., Examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Sekine detects ahead whether a curve is continuous – i.e., whether two turns lie in an upcoming route section. Specifically, Sekine discloses, “[T]he curve recognition means detects a series of curves ahead in the direction of travel of the vehicle” such that “the vehicle is slowed down to an appropriate speed before entering a series of curves” (Sekine, ¶ 5, emphases added). Sekine further discloses, “The curve recognition unit 14 acquires road data stored in the storage unit 11 and detects curves present on the road ahead in the direction of travel of the vehicle based on this road data …. [T]he curve recognition unit 14 includes a continuous curve determination unit 21, which determines whether the detected curve is a single curve or a continuous curve consisting of multiple curves in sequence. The curve recognition unit 14 is configured to recognize the shape of a curve located, for example, about 200m to 300m ahead of the vehicle's current position” (Id., ¶ 16, emphases added). Finally, Sekine ¶ 37 provides similar disclosure that in steps S24-S25 a continuous curve, consisting of multiple curves (i.e., turns), is detected ahead of the vehicle. Notably, the alarm determination process of step S02 — which includes steps S24-S25 — precedes steps S05-S09 in the FIG. 6 flow (See ¶¶ 30, 36-37). The forward-looking continuous curve determination accordingly occurs before the vehicle enters the first curve, and before the determination as S08 which Applicant addresses. Therefore, Sekine discloses “detecting that two turns lie in an upcoming route section” as required by claim 11.
Examiner notes that Applicant cites the Japanese language document and Sekine’s claim 11 for the proposition that continuity is determined only after the vehicle exits the first curve. The translation of record — provided in the last round of prosecution and provided newly in this round with the accompanying figures — does not support this reading. See Sekine ¶¶ 5, 16 and 37 and associated discussion supra. Applicant is requested to identify whether a different translation or interpretation of Sekine is being relied upon and, if so, to submit that translation for the record.
As to argument II., Examiner respectfully disagrees. Upon reconsideration, Sekine discloses: in response to detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section, maintaining a speed of the motor vehicle at a constant target speed value through and after passing through a first of the two turns until the vehicle is within a second of the two turns (“[I]f a series of curves C consisting of the first to sixth curves C1, ..., C6 is recognized in front of the vehicle A in the direction of travel, the vehicle A will decelerate from the first set speed V1 to the appropriate speed VS1 necessary to properly pass through the first curve C1 before reaching the entrance position of the series of curves C, that is, the entrance position CS1 of the first curve C1.” ¶ 26. Additionally, “when vehicle A passes through a curve, that is, in the section from the entrance position CS5 of the fifth curve C5 to the exit position CE6 of the sixth curve C6, the cruise control unit 19 controls the speed of vehicle A to maintain an appropriate speed VS5.” ¶ 28. See also FIG. 5, illustrating that VS1 is indeed maintained before and through C1 up until at least C3.). Sekine FIG. 5 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Sekine FIG. 5 )]
Summarizing, Sekine establishes that, in response to detecting that a continuous curve (i.e., at least two turns) lies ahead in an upcoming route section, a vehicle is controlled to a constant target speed value VS1 before entering a first turn C1, and the constant target speed value VS1 is maintained through and after passing through the first turn C1 until at least a vehicle is within a second turn C2, as VS1 is maintained up until at least curve C3 (a third turn) per at least FIG. 5. Sekine ¶ 28 further establishes a similar control wherein a constant target speed value VS5 is maintained through and after passing through turn C5 until at least when the vehicle is within turn C6. Therefore, Sekine alone discloses the claim limitation at issue.
As to argument III., the argument has been fully considered but is moot as Sekine alone discloses the limitation at issue, and Natsumi is no longer relied upon for that teaching.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sekine (JP2002362183A; “Sekine”)
As to independent claim 11, Sekine discloses a method for the automated longitudinal guidance of a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting that two turns lie in an upcoming route section (“[T]he curve recognition means detects a series of curves ahead in the direction of travel of the vehicle” such that “the vehicle is slowed down to an appropriate speed before entering a series of curves.” Emphases added; ¶ 5. “The curve recognition unit 14 acquires road data stored in the storage unit 11 and detects curves present on the road ahead in the direction of travel of the vehicle based on this road data …. [T]he curve recognition unit 14 includes a continuous curve determination unit 21, which determines whether the detected curve is a single curve or a continuous curve consisting of multiple curves in sequence. The curve recognition unit 14 is configured to recognize the shape of a curve located, for example, about 200m to 300m ahead of the vehicle's current position.” Emphases added; ¶ 16. Continuing, ¶ 37 puts forth that in steps S24-S25 a continuous curve, consisting of multiple curves (i.e., turns), is detected ahead of the vehicle. Notably, the alarm determination process of step S02 — which includes steps S24-S25 — precedes steps S05-S09 in the FIG. 6 flow (See ¶¶ 30, 36-37); accordingly, the forward-looking continuous curve determination occurs before the vehicle enters the first curve.); and
in response to detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section, maintaining a speed of the motor vehicle at a constant target speed value through and after passing through a first of the two turns until the vehicle is within a second of the two turns (“[I]f a series of curves C consisting of the first to sixth curves C1, ..., C6 is recognized in front of the vehicle A in the direction of travel, the vehicle A will decelerate from the first set speed V1 to the appropriate speed VS1 necessary to properly pass through the first curve C1 before reaching the entrance position of the series of curves C, that is, the entrance position CS1 of the first curve C1.” ¶ 26. Additionally, “when vehicle A passes through a curve, that is, in the section from the entrance position CS5 of the fifth curve C5 to the exit position CE6 of the sixth curve C6, the cruise control unit 19 controls the speed of vehicle A to maintain an appropriate speed VS5.” ¶ 28. See also FIG. 5 — reproduced below — illustrating that VS1 is indeed maintained before and through C1 up until at least C3.).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Sekine FIG. 5 )]
As to claim 14, Sekine discloses: in response to detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section, adjusting the speed of the motor vehicle to the constant target speed value before the motor vehicle reaches the first turn (“[B]by the time vehicle A reaches the entrance position CS5 of the fifth curve C5, vehicle A is decelerated from the appropriate speed VS1 to the appropriate speed VS5.” ¶ 27.).
As to claim 15, Sekine discloses: in response to detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section, adjusting the speed of the motor vehicle to a target speed value which exceeds the constant target speed value after passing through the second turn (“[O]nce vehicle A has completed passing through the continuous curve C, the cruise control unit 19 accelerates vehicle A from, for example, the appropriate speed VS5 to the first set speed V1.” ¶ 28. See also ¶ 26 which establishes that V1 is greater than VS1, and ¶ 27 which establishes that VS1 is greater than VS5. See also FIG. 5. Note: Summarizing, a vehicle’s speed is adjusted from a constant speed target speed value VS5 to target speed value V1 after passing through at least turns C5 and C6 (i.e., passing through a second turn), wherein V1 > VS5.).
As to claim 16, Sekine discloses: wherein detecting that two turns lie in an upcoming route section is performed on the basis of map data and a planned trajectory of the motor vehicle (“The storage unit 11 consists of a computer-readable recording medium such as a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM, and stores map data including road data.” ¶ 15. “The curve recognition unit 14 acquires road data stored in the storage unit 11 and detects curves present on the road ahead of the vehicle's direction of travel based on this road data.” ¶ 16.).
As to claim 17, Sekine discloses: a control device configured to execute the method of claim 11 (“cruise control unit 19” - ¶ 23.)
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of Simon et al. (DE102016216156B3; “Simon”)
As to claim 12, Sekine discloses: detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section (“The curve recognition unit 14 acquires road data stored in the storage unit 11 and detects curves present on the road ahead in the direction of travel of the vehicle based on this road data …. [T]he curve recognition unit 14 includes a continuous curve determination unit 21, which determines whether the detected curve is a single curve or a continuous curve consisting of multiple curves in sequence. The curve recognition unit 14 is configured to recognize the shape of a curve located, for example, about 200m to 300m ahead of the vehicle's current position.” ¶ 16.)
Sekine fails to explicitly disclose wherein detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section comprises:
adding up an angle of the first turn and an angle of the second turn to obtain a total angle;
comparing the total angle with a threshold value; and
detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section when the total angle exceeds the threshold value.
Nevertheless, Simon teaches: adding up an angle of the first turn and an angle of the second turn to obtain a total angle; comparing the total angle with a threshold value; and detecting that a curve lies in the upcoming route section when the total angle exceeds the threshold value (“Based on provided route data, so-called predictive route data, the segment rotation angle is calculated for each segment, i.e., for each route segment. The unidirectional segment rotation angles of successive segments are added together to form a total rotation angle in the form of the aforementioned rotation angle sum. If this sum of rotation angles exceeds a predetermined angle threshold, i.e., a kind of rotation angle threshold, the connected segments are classified as a curve relevant for the driver assistance system, i.e., categorized as a curve.” ¶ 11; see also ¶¶ 9, 36-38).
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 Sekine to include the feature of: adding up an angle of the first turn and an angle of the second turn to obtain a total angle; comparing the total angle with a threshold value; and detecting that a curve lies in the upcoming route section when the total angle exceeds the threshold value, as taught by Simon, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for detecting and analyzing curves along a preceding route of a motor vehicle “in a particularly reliable manner in order to operate at least one driver assistance system of the motor vehicle based thereon.” (Simon, ¶ 7.)
Additionally, a skilled artisan in view of the combination of Sekine and Simon would have been motivated to arrive with a reasonable expectation success and through predictable results at the claimed limitation of: detecting that two turns lie in the upcoming route section when the total angle exceeds the threshold value. Simon establishes that “[c]hanges in the direction of curves can be differentiated variably by varying the specified sum of the rotation angles.” (¶ 12.) A skilled artisan looking to modify Sekine would have been motivated to adjust Simon’s threshold to differentiate between single and continuous (two-turn+) curves given Simon’s guidance. Such a modification would predictably yield a more accurate determination of whether a curve is single or continuous based on a total angle exceeding an appropriate threshold value, especially in view of the ordinary understanding of road geometry that a continuous curve produces a larger accumulated rotation angle than a single curve. Hence, the modification would constitute a routine optimization of Simon’s angle threshold within the context of Sekine to arrive at the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of Simon as applied to claim 12 – further in view of Mine et al. (US6208927B1; “Mine”)
As to claim 13, the combination of Sekine and Simon fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the constant target speed value is selected as a function of the total angle.
Nevertheless, Mine teaches: wherein the constant target speed value is selected as a function of the total angle (“The reference value setting section 26a calculates a reference value ayl1n of an allowable lateral acceleration ayln in accordance with the road surface friction coefficient .mu.. The vehicle speed corrected section 26b corrects the reference value ayl1n to a corrected value ayl2n in accordance with the vehicle speed V. The curve angle correction section 26c corrects the corrected value ayl2n to a corrected value ayl3n in accordance with the total curve angle θsn and the direction of the curve to which node Pn belongs. The road slope correction section 26d corrects the corrected value ayl3n in accordance with the road slope SL, to obtain the allowable lateral acceleration ayln.” Emphasis added; col. 14, ll. 29-41. “Vpn=reference allowable approaching speed at node Pn.” Col. 13, ll. 39-40. “The reference allowable approaching speed setting section 27 is a means for setting a reference allowable approaching speed Vpn based on the radius of curvature Rn of curve given by the data reduction section 25 and the allowable lateral acceleration ayln given by the allowable lateral acceleration setting section 26.” Col. 15, ll. 44-53. Finally, expression 27 is: “Vpn – (ayln*Rn)1/2”. Col. 15 ll, 57. Note: Summarizing, a constant target speed value Vpn is calculated as a function of ayln, which is ultimately a function of the total curve angle.).
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 Sekine and Simon to include the feature of: wherein the constant target speed value is selected as a function of the total angle, as taught by Mine, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “taking a high criticality in the case of a large θsn into consideration, the allowable lateral acceleration is corrected to be reduced as the total curve angle θsn increases,” thereby allowing for “a good forward view, [and] also a large radius of turning” when navigating through a turn. (Mine, col. 15, ll. 14-17.) Hence, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Mine’s correction to Sekine given its stated object of properly passing through a series of curves while preventing excessive acceleration and deceleration. (See Sekine, ¶ 3.)
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of Mizoguchi (US20190375405A1; “Mizoguchi”)
As to claim 18, Sekine fails to explicitly disclose: an automated motor vehicle, comprising the control device of claim 1.
Nevertheless, Mizoguchi teaches: an automated motor vehicle, comprising a control device (“The traveling control system 1 may perform a traveling control including autonomous self-driving of a vehicle.” ¶ 19 and FIG. 1. “[W]hen the traveling control apparatus 100 recognizes a curve zone in front of the own vehicle traveling along the target traveling course … the traveling control apparatus 100 performs a vehicle speed control that decelerates the own vehicle traveling at the set vehicle speed to the appropriate curve-traveling speed.” ¶ 38.).
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 Sekine to include the feature of: an automated motor vehicle, comprising a control device, as taught by Mizoguchi, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for extending Sekine’s curve speed control to autonomous vehicles, especially since Mizoguchi performs curve speed control with autonomous vehicles. (See Mizoguchi, ¶¶ 3, 38.)
As to claim 19, Sekine fails to explicitly disclose: a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium and executable by a computer so as to cause the processor to perform the method of claim 11.
Nevertheless, Mizoguchi teaches: a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium and executable by a computer so as to cause the processor to perform a method (“The traveling control apparatus 100 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implementable by circuitry including at least one semiconductor integrated circuit such as at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)) …. At least one processor is configurable, by reading instructions from at least one machine readable non-transitory tangible medium, to perform all or a part of functions of the traveling control apparatus 100.” ¶ 67.).
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 Sekine to include the feature of: a computer program stored on a non-transitory medium and executable by a computer so as to cause the processor to perform a method, as taught by Mizoguchi, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because a non-transitory medium is a well-known hardware component used to perform vehicle control, including curve speed control as contemplated by Sekine and Mizoguchi.
As to claim 20, Sekine fails to explicitly disclose: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable commands that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method of claim 11.
Nevertheless, Mizoguchi teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable commands that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (“The traveling control apparatus 100 illustrated in FIG. 1 is implementable by circuitry including at least one semiconductor integrated circuit such as at least one processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)) …. At least one processor is configurable, by reading instructions from at least one machine readable non-transitory tangible medium, to perform all or a part of functions of the traveling control apparatus 100.” ¶ 67.).
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 Sekine to include the feature of: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable commands that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method, as taught by Mizoguchi, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is a well-known hardware component used to perform vehicle control, including curve speed control as contemplated by Sekine and Mizoguchi.
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