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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/08/2024. Claims 1-15 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2206825.8, filed on 05/10/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira (JP 2020082749 A).
Regarding claim 1, Akira discloses a speed control system for a vehicle, the speed control system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in accordance with a target speed, the speed control system comprising one or more controllers, the speed control system configured to:
receive a turn indicator status signal indicative of a state of a turn signal indicator control of the vehicle; ([0017]; “In addition, when the vehicle 10 is being driven by the driver, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle 10 is about to leave onto a branch road based on the driver's operation (e.g., turn signal operation, steering operation, etc.).”)
determine a turn indicator target speed limit in dependence on the turn indicator status signal; ([0018]; “More specifically, when the branch judgment unit 231 determines that the vehicle 10 is about to depart onto a branch road, the deceleration instruction unit 232 creates a target deceleration profile and outputs a deceleration instruction according to the target deceleration profile.”) and
control the vehicle in accordance with the turn indicator target speed limit. ([0018]; “More specifically, when the branch judgment unit 231 determines that the vehicle 10 is about to depart onto a branch road, the deceleration instruction unit 232 creates a target deceleration profile and outputs a deceleration instruction according to the target deceleration profile.”)
Regarding claim 5, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira discloses receive map information indicative of a geography of one or more paths ahead of a vehicle ([0017]; “For example, when the vehicle 10 is traveling automatically, the branch determination unit 231 determines whether the vehicle 10 is about to depart from its planned traveling route onto a branch road.”), wherein the turn indicator target speed limit is determined in dependence on the map information. ([0018]; “The deceleration instruction unit 232 is configured to be able to output a deceleration instruction to decelerate the vehicle 10 toward a curve on a branching road.”)
Regarding claim 6, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Akira discloses determine a predicted route of the vehicle in dependence on the map information and the turn indicator status signal ([0017]; “For example, when the vehicle 10 is traveling automatically, the branch determination unit 231 determines whether the vehicle 10 is about to depart from its planned traveling route onto a branch road.”); and
determine the turn indicator target speed limit in dependence on the predicted route. ([0018]; “More specifically, when the branch judgment unit 231 determines that the vehicle 10 is about to depart onto a branch road, the deceleration instruction unit 232 creates a target deceleration profile and outputs a deceleration instruction according to the target deceleration profile.”)
Regarding claim 7, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Akira discloses a left turn indicator status signal or a right turn indicator status signal ([0010]; “The vehicle 10 is configured to include a turn signal switch 110”), the speed control system being configured to: determine a predicted route of the vehicle in dependence on the map information ([0017]; “For example, when the vehicle 10 is traveling automatically, the branch determination unit 231 determines whether the vehicle 10 is about to depart from its planned traveling route onto a branch road.”) and the left turn indicator status signal or the right turn indicator status signal ([0017]; “In addition, when the vehicle 10 is being driven by the driver, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle 10 is about to leave onto a branch road based on the driver's operation (e.g., turn signal operation, steering operation, etc.).”); and
determine the turn indicator target speed limit in dependence on the predicted route. ([0018]; “More specifically, when the branch judgment unit 231 determines that the vehicle 10 is about to depart onto a branch road, the deceleration instruction unit 232 creates a target deceleration profile and outputs a deceleration instruction according to the target deceleration profile.”)
Regarding claim 8, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira discloses receive vehicle turning information indicative that the vehicle is turning ([0017]; “In addition, when the vehicle 10 is being driven by the driver, it is possible to determine whether the vehicle 10 is about to leave onto a branch road based on the driver's operation (e.g., turn signal operation, steering operation, etc.).”); and
limit vehicle speed in dependence on the vehicle turning information. ([0018]; “More specifically, when the branch judgment unit 231 determines that the vehicle 10 is about to depart onto a branch road, the deceleration instruction unit 232 creates a target deceleration profile and outputs a deceleration instruction according to the target deceleration profile.”)
Regarding claim 9, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Akira discloses vehicle lateral acceleration ([0013]; “The vehicle speed sensor 140 is configured to be able to acquire the speed of the vehicle 10.”); and
yaw rate of the vehicle ([0013]; “The yaw rate sensor 160 is configured to be able to acquire the yaw rate of the vehicle 10.”),
the speed control system being configured to limit vehicle speed in dependence at least in part on one or both of vehicle lateral acceleration and yaw rate. ([0014]; “The recognition processing unit 210 is configured as, for example, an ECU (Electronic Control Unit), and is configured to be able to recognize the current situation of the vehicle 10 (for example, the driving state, driving position, information about the road being driven on, the presence or absence of obstacles, etc.) based on… the information acquired by each of the radar sensor 130, the image sensor 140, the vehicle speed sensor 150, and the yaw rate sensor 160… The recognition result by the recognition processing unit 210 is output to the collision determination unit 220 and the vehicle control device 230 .”)
Regarding claim 12, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira discloses a speed control system as claimed in claim1 ([0016]; “Furthermore, the vehicle control device 230 according to this embodiment is particularly configured to be able to execute deceleration control targeting a curve on a branching road when the vehicle 10 leaves the branching road.”); and
a turn signal indicator control configured to output a turn indicator status signal indicative of a state of the turn signal indicator control. ([0011]; “The turn signal switch 110 is a switch that controls the operation of the turn signals (i.e., direction indicators) of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 13, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira discloses a vehicle comprising the speed control system claim 1 ([0010]; “As shown in FIG. 1, a vehicle control device 230 according to this embodiment is mounted on a vehicle 10 capable of automatic driving (i.e., capable of driving without the operation of a passenger).”)
Claim 14 recites a method to operate the speed control system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, Akira discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Akira discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more electronic processors, causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 14. ([0016]; “The vehicle control device 230 is configured as, for example, an ECU, and is configured to be able to control the behavior of the vehicle 10 using the recognition results of the recognition processing unit 210 and the judgment results of the collision judgment unit 220, etc.”
Note: ECU’s are well known in the art to typically contain computer readable storage mediums to execute instructions for vehicle control.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by FAIRGRIEVE et al. (WO 2013124321 A1; hereafter FAIRGRIEVE).
Regarding claim 2, Akira discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally FAIRGRIEVE discloses receive a terrain indicator parameter indicative of a nature of terrain over which the vehicle is travelling ([pg. 2, lines 20-22]; “The predetermined maximum speed may be varied according to terrain type, and is selected either by driver selection of a terrain type or by automatic sensing of terrain type by the vehicle.”), wherein the turn indicator target speed limit is determined in dependence on the terrain indicator parameter. ([pg. 2 line 20]; “The predetermined maximum speed may be varied according to terrain type”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akira with FAIRGRIEVE. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira and FAIRGRIEVE cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (speed control of a vehicle during turns) and it would have been beneficial to determine the type of terrain being driven on as certain types may influence what speeds are safe to operate a turning motion.
Regarding claim 3, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Additionally FAIRGRIEVE discloses a signal indicative of driver selection of a terrain type ([pg. 2, lines 20-22]; “The predetermined maximum speed may be varied according to terrain type, and is selected either by driver selection of a terrain type or by automatic sensing of terrain type by the vehicle.”); or
a signal indicative of terrain type generated by a further vehicle system in dependence on vehicle sensor information. ([pg. 2, lines 20-22]; “The predetermined maximum speed may be varied according to terrain type, and is selected either by driver selection of a terrain type or by automatic sensing of terrain type by the vehicle.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akira with FAIRGRIEVE. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira and FAIRGRIEVE cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (speed control of a vehicle during turns) and it would have been beneficial to determine the type of terrain being driven on as certain types may influence what speeds are safe to operate a turning motion.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by Nassouri et al. (US 20200377082 A1; hereafter Nassouri).
Regarding claim 4, Akira discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Nassouri discloses receive an occupant comfort parameter indicative of a desired level of occupant comfort ([0045]; “The fusion of vehicle path and vision to calculate instantaneous cornering radius is then correlated with a comfort setting of driver to improve driver comfort by adapting to an individual drivers preferences”), and wherein the turn indicator target speed limit is determined in further dependence at least in part on the occupant comfort parameter. ([0045]; “In an additional embodiment, the vehicle controller 230 may adjust the speed of the vehicle by reducing the throttle via the throttle controller 255 or to apply the friction brakes via the brake controller 260 in response to a driver profile saved in the memory 250.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akira with Nassouri. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira and Nassouri cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (speed control of a vehicle during turns) and it would have been beneficial to determine the comfort level of the driver as the comfort levels of the driver may dictate what speeds they are comfortable turning with.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by SAKAGUCHI et al. (JP 2017087834 A; hereafter SAKAGUCHI).
Regarding claim 10, Akira discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally SAKAGUCHI discloses limit vehicle speed in dependence on the vehicle turning information and terminate limiting vehicle speed to the turn indicator target speed limit when the vehicle turning information indicates that vehicle speed should be reduced to a value equal to or less than the turn indicator target speed limit. ([0031]; “In addition, the vehicle speed control unit 14 performs deceleration control when the speed of the vehicle M is faster than the curve driving target vehicle speed, and when the turn signal is activated and the speed of the vehicle M is slower than the cruising speed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Akira with SAKAGUCHI. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira and SAKAGUCHI cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (speed control of a vehicle during turns) and it would have been beneficial to control the speeds of the vehicle during the turning motion to be less than the turn indicator speed.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
CHOI et al. (US 20200189586 A1; hereafter CHOI): recites a driving assistance apparatus for controlling the deceleration at exit ramps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 Lee can be reached on (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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668