DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination, and Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 06/12/2026.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 16-18 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-18 are pending for examination.
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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-9, and 12-15 under U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Akira (JP 2020082749 A). and the rejection to claims 2-3 under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by FAIRGRIEVE et al. (WO 2013124321 A1; hereafter FAIRGRIEVE). have been fully considered. However, the examiner disagrees that the prior art Akira and Fairgrieve either individually or in combination as used in the previous office action do not teach the limitations found in the amended claims 1 and 14. The applicant states that Akira and Fairgrieve do not teach “determining a turn indicator target speed limit in dependence on a terrain indicator parameter. However, Fairgrieve does teach said limitation ([pg. 11 lines 17-28]; “FIG. 3 illustrates a manner in which the VCU 15 determines a value of max_set_speed. The VCU 15 is configured to receive inputs corresponding to a number of vehicle parameters. The parameters are:… (c) a current value of steering angle, corresponding to a steerable road wheel angle or steering wheel position;… (f) a current measured value of surface roughness (determined by reference to suspension articulation);”
[pg. 12 lines 11-13]; “The VCU 15 also determines the value of max_set_speed according to a value of surface roughness of the terrain over which the vehicle 10 is driving. The value of max_set_speed is reduced as the surface roughness increases. FIG. 4 illustrates a form of the variation of max_set_speed with surface or terrain roughness.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the prior art Fairgrieve since Fairgrieve teaches the use of both steering wheel data as well as terrain data to influence the max allowable speed for the vehicle to drive during turning conditions.).
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 03/09/2026. 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 § 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 1, 3, 5-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by FAIRGRIEVE.
Akira and FAIRGRIEVE were cited in the previous office action.
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.”)
Although Akira teaches speed control utilizing turn indicators, Akira does not teach the use of terrain data.
However, FAIRGRIEVE does teach 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. 11 lines 17-28]; “FIG. 3 illustrates a manner in which the VCU 15 determines a value of max_set_speed. The VCU 15 is configured to receive inputs corresponding to a number of vehicle parameters. The parameters are:… (c) a current value of steering angle, corresponding to a steerable road wheel angle or steering wheel position;… (f) a current measured value of surface roughness (determined by reference to suspension articulation);”
[pg. 12 lines 11-13]; “The VCU 15 also determines the value of max_set_speed according to a value of surface roughness of the terrain over which the vehicle 10 is driving. The value of max_set_speed is reduced as the surface roughness increases. FIG. 4 illustrates a form of the variation of max_set_speed with surface or terrain roughness.”
Note: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the prior art Fairgrieve since Fairgrieve teaches the use of both steering wheel data as well as terrain data to influence the max allowable speed for the vehicle to drive during turning conditions.).
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 1. Additionally FAIRGRIEVE teaches 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.
Regarding claim 5, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira teaches 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 in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Akira teaches 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.)
Regarding claim 16, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Akira teaches when the speed control system is reducing vehicle speed toward the turn indicator target speed limit, the speed control system is configured to reduce vehicle speed at a rate not less than a minimum deceleration rate, the minimum deceleration rate being determined in dependence on the terrain indicator parameter. ([0038]; “Therefore, the deceleration of the vehicle 10 is smaller than that in other sections. When the vehicle 10 leaves the branch road and enters the "deceleration G increasing area," the target G (i.e., deceleration) is gradually increased, and the vehicle speed decreases little by little. When the vehicle 10 enters the "steady deceleration G region" where it travels along a branching road, the target G is maintained at a high value and the vehicle speed decreases significantly. As the clothoid start point (i.e., deceleration end point) approaches and the deceleration G decreases, the target G is gradually decreased and the vehicle speed gradually
approaches the target vehicle speed Vk.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Akira teaches a range of decelerations rates based on the paragraph shown above. Since the range would have a minimum and a maximum value one of ordinary skill would recognize that Akira teaches preventing the deceleration rate to be less than the set value.)
Regarding claim 17, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, FAIRGRIEVE teaches the turn indicator target speed limit determined in dependence on the terrain indicator parameter is lower when the terrain indicator parameter indicates a first terrain type than when the terrain indicator parameter indicates a second terrain type. ([pg. 5 lines 17-19]; “In one embodiment the level of friction at the vehicle tyre/terrain interface may be detected, so that maximum speed control speed is reduced if friction levels are reduced, as in ice and snow conditions.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the maximum speed taught by FAIRGRIEVE is reduce while driving on low friction terrain such as snow/ice, the maximum speed while driving on higher friction terrain such as dry pavement would be higher.)
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 alter the maximum allowable speed depending on the terrain type in order to prevent the vehicle from losing traction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Akira as evidenced by FAIRGRIEVE and further evidenced by Nassouri et al. (US 20200377082 A1; hereafter Nassouri).
Nassouri was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 4, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Nassouri teaches 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 FAIRGRIEVE and Nassouri. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira, FAIRGRIEVE 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 FAIRGRIEVE and further evidenced by SAKAGUCHI et al. (JP 2017087834 A; hereafter SAKAGUCHI).
SAKAGUCHI was cited in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 10, Akira in combination with FAIRGRIEVE discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally SAKAGUCHI teaches 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 FAIRGRIEVE and SAKAGUCHI. This modification would have been obvious because both Akira, FAIRGRIEVE 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.
Regarding independent claim 18, closest prior arts, Akira and FAIRGRIEVE, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Akira teaches 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.”), but fails to specifically teach when the speed control system terminates limiting vehicle speed to the turn indicator target speed limit, the speed control system does not subsequently permit the vehicle speed to be limited to the turn indicator target speed limit until after the turn indicator status signal indicates that the state of the turn indicator corresponds to neither a left turn nor a right turn.
FAIRGRIEVE teaches speed control of a vehicle ([pg. 2 lines 9-13]; “Speed control in off-highway or on-highway conditions may be implemented by means of a speed control system. In some embodiments a vehicle may have an on-highway cruise control system for implementing speed control in on-highway conditions and an off-highway speed control system, speed control in off-highway conditions being implemented by means of the off-highway speed control system.”), but fails to specifically teach when the speed control system terminates limiting vehicle speed to the turn indicator target speed limit, the speed control system does not subsequently permit the vehicle speed to be limited to the turn indicator target speed limit until after the turn indicator status signal indicates that the state of the turn indicator corresponds to neither a left turn nor a right turn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights