DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 06/24/2026. With the filed amendment, new claim 6 has been added. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 06/24/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto et al. (US 2018/0120844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Okamoto, in view of Iun et al. (US 2023/0008967 A1), hereinafter referred to as Iun.
Regarding claim 1:
Okamoto discloses the following limitations:
“A driving assistance system capable of continuing travel control of a vehicle in a state where a driver of the vehicle does not hold a steering wheel.” (Okamoto ¶ 102: “In the embodiment, controlling all of an accelerator operation, a brake operation, and a steering wheel operation, which are maneuvers related to the vehicle behavior out of vehicle maneuvers, by the vehicle control ECU 20 is described as autonomous driving assistance that is executed so that the vehicle travels autonomously without user's driving maneuvers.”)
“the driving assistance system being configured to: calculate an arrival time until the vehicle arrives at a caution area.” (Okamoto ¶ 72: “in S7, the CPU 41 calculates the time t required for the vehicle to reach the start point of the execution restricted section (hereinafter referred to as the required traveling time).”)
“and when the arrival time is longer than a set hands-off permission time, permit the travel control in a state where the driver does not hold the steering wheel.” (Okamoto ¶ 62: “If it is determined that the vehicle is executing autonomous driving assistance (S1: YES), the routine proceeds to S2.” Additionally, Okamoto ¶ 74 and FIG. 7: “If it is determined that the required traveling time t is not equal to or less than the required preliminary operation time T (S7: NO), the routine returns to S5 and waits until the required traveling time t becomes equal to or less than the required preliminary operation time T.”)
“by automatically steering the vehicle so as not to deviate from a travel lane on which the vehicle travels.” (Okamoto ¶¶ 34-37: “In the present embodiment, the following three types of autonomous driving assistance are particularly executed. … (3) ‘Lane keeping’ . . . The vehicle is kept approximately centered in the lane without causing lane deviation (e.g., lane keeping assistance).”)
“wherein the driving assistance system calculates the arrival time based on a calculated arrival distance to the caution area.” (Okamoto ¶¶ 70-72: “In S5, the CPU 41 calculates the distance to the execution restricted section determined to be present ahead in the direction in which the vehicle is traveling, based on the current position of the vehicle obtained in S2. … Thereafter, in S7, the CPU 41 calculates the time t required for the vehicle to reach the start point of the execution restricted section (hereinafter referred to as the required traveling time) on the assumption that the vehicle continues to travel at the current vehicle speed V, based on the current vehicle speed V of the vehicle obtained in S6 and the distance L to the start point of the execution restricted section obtained in S5.”)
Okamoto does not explicitly disclose that the arrival time is calculated based on “traffic flow calculated based on a detection result of a vehicle sensor and obtained traffic-related information.” However, Iun does teach this limitation. (Iun ¶ 161: “Example on-board sensors 418 may include any combination of sensors and/or signal processing circuitry configured to detect any one or more of: current vehicle speed, current vehicle location, current vehicle direction of travel, current vehicle health and/or operating parameters, local road condition (e.g. dry, wet, ice etc.), and local traffic congestion.” Further, Iun ¶ 241: “based on the vehicle location and speed, as well as the speed of other traffic approaching and leaving the next intersection, the Traffic Information Hub 502 can estimate the time that the vehicle will most likely enter the intersection.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Okamoto by calculating the arrival time based on sensed and obtained traffic data as taught by Iun, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Calculating time of arrival based partly on traffic data would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the intersection management system of Iun or whether integrated into the autonomous driving assistance system of Okamoto. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the presence of traffic congestion between the vehicle and the caution area would naturally delay the vehicle’s arrival to the caution area.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Okamoto and Iun teaches “The driving assistance system according to claim 1,” and Okamoto additionally teaches “wherein the caution area is at least one of an intersection, a construction section, a section including an accident site, and a high-frequency accident occurrence section.” (Okamoto ¶¶ 40-42: “the following three types of sections are particularly defined as the execution restricted sections. … (B) Sections where a plurality of roads connect.” This at least teaches the caution area being an intersection as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 2, consistent with the specification, the caution area being “at least one of an intersection, a construction section, a section including an accident site, and a high-frequency accident occurrence section” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “an intersection” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Okamoto and Iun teaches “The driving assistance system according to claim 1,” and Okamoto further teaches “wherein the hands-off permission time is determined according to a type of the caution area.” (Okamoto ¶ 49 and FIG. 6 reproduced below: “As shown in FIG. 6, the preliminary operation correspondence table 33 defines the required preliminary operation time for each type of execution restricted sections of (A) to (C) described above.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
447
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Okamoto and Iun teaches “The driving assistance system according to claim 1,” and Okamoto additionally teaches “wherein the travel control in a state where the driver does not hold the steering wheel is not permitted when the arrival time is equal to or less than the hands-off permission time.” (Okamoto ¶ 50: “If the execution restricted section located ahead in the direction in which the vehicle is traveling is a section where autonomous driving assistance cannot be executed regardless of the state of the vehicle, the navigation ECU 13 prompts the user to make a transition to manual driving at the timing the time required for the vehicle to reach the start point of the execution restricted section becomes equal to or less than the required preliminary operation time defined for this execution restricted section.” Further, Okamoto ¶ 102: “Manual driving based on user's driving maneuvers is described as the user performing all of the accelerator operation, the brake operation, and the steering wheel operation, which are the maneuvers related to the vehicle behavior out of the vehicle maneuvers.”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Okamoto and Iun teaches “The driving assistance system according to claim 4,” and Okamoto also teaches “wherein, when the travel control in a state where the driver does not hold the steering wheel is not permitted, the driving assistance system requests the driver to drive in a state of holding the steering wheel.” (Okamoto ¶ 54: “If it is determined that autonomous driving assistance cannot be executed, the speaker 16 outputs voice guidance prompting the user to make a transition to manual driving.”)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Iun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2025/0074448 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Okamoto and Iun teaches “The driving assistance system according to claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the driving assistance system determines whether or not the state of the driver is a hands-on state by way of received output from a touch sensor of the steering wheel, a torque sensor, or a driver monitoring camera.” However, Park does teach this limitation. (Park ¶¶ 42-44: “The sensor unit 110 may include various sub-functional modules, such as a user state detection unit 111, a vehicle state detection unit 113, and an external recognition sensor unit 115. … The user state detection unit 111 (e.g., a sensor, such as a camera, a motion sensor, a wheel sensor for sensing user's hand contacting the driving wheel, a biometric sensor for identifying characteristics of parts of a human body, etc.) may detect the current status of the user. … The vehicle state detection unit 113 may detect user input related to vehicle motion control, such as steering torque and acceleration or braking pedal inputs.” Also, Park ¶ 113: “the processor 130 may use information obtained from the sensor unit 110 to determine whether the vehicle is capable of only manual driving, both manual driving and autonomous driving, or is incapable of even manual driving.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 6, consistent with the instant specification, the driving assistance system determining whether or not the state of the driver is a hands-on state “by way of received output from a touch sensor of the steering wheel, a torque sensor, or a driver monitoring camera” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while the touch sensor, the torque sensor, and the driver monitoring camera have all been addressed here, only one of the three options is required by the claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Okamoto and Iun by identifying whether the state of the driver is a hands-on state based on output from a touch sensor on the steering wheel, a torque sensor, and/or a driver monitoring camera as is taught by Park, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., detecting output from a touch sensor on the steering wheel, a torque sensor, and/or a driver monitoring camera) for another (i.e., detecting a steering operation or a brake operation of the user as disclosed by Okamoto ¶ 58) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the detection of the steering/brake operation of Okamoto with the detection of output from a touch sensor on the steering wheel, a torque sensor, and/or a driver monitoring camera as taught by Park to achieve the predictable result of identifying whether the driver wishes to manually control the vehicle based on a wider variety of possible sensor data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johansson et al. (the non-patent article “System for Hands-on Steering Wheel Detection Using Machine Learning”) Abstract discloses that “To check that the driver is controlling the vehicle and holds the steering wheel, a system can be created using inputs from the steering gear sensors or a camera. Two different solutions using these inputs are implemented and tested to see if machine learning can be used to differentiate between hands on and hands off situations.”
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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights