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 Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/04/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the title objection: Applicant has submitted a new title, and it has been entered. The title objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 112(b) rejections. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 17 by adding actively controlling the speed of the vehicle which integrates the mental process into a practical application. Therefore, 101 rejections for claims 1, 4, 5, 10-11, 14, and 17 are withdrawn.
However, claims 6-7 and 18 are still rejected under 101 as outlined below.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection below in the FINAL office action and the prior arguments are considered moot. However, since the Office is using the same cited prior art for the claimed subject matter, the Office will address the remarks that remain relevant.
On page 12, applicant submits Harda does not teach “determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle.” While Harda does not explicitly teach this limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to derive a target speed based on the curvature threshold value as taught by Harda. Harda does teach determining a reduction of the velocity [Harda ¶ 0098 "According to some embodiments, the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to only perform the reduction of the velocity in cases where a degree of curvature of an upcoming curve section 15 exceeds a degree of curvature threshold value. Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which only performs a reduction of the velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case of presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature, exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."]. It would have been obvious to determine a target speed based on the degree of curvature. The higher the degree of curvature, the lower the target speed. Harda teaches reducing the vehicle speed based on the degree of curvature of the road and the current vehicle speed [Harda ¶ 0104]. It would have been obvious to modify Harda such that the vehicle speed is compared to a target speed to improve safety and avoid unnecessarily low velocities through curve sections having a low degree of curvature [Harda ¶ 0049].
On page 12, applicant submits Harda does not teach “suppress a process causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel … with respect to the target speed. The examiner disagrees. In paragraph 0106 of Harda, "The human machine interface 28 may be arranged to output the request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 only in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23." There is only one case where there is output to request gripping of a steering wheel. Therefore, in the other possible cases, the output/request is suppressed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2026 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process) without significantly more.
-----------------Claim 6-------------------------
A control device comprising:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions [high level of generality and generally linking]; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to [high level of generality and generally linking]:
acquire a target speed during traveling on a curved road located in front of a vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. data collection],
determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle [mental process], and
suppress a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. data gathering/processing],
cause the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle if it is determined that a condition in which the speed of the vehicle can be increased is satisfied when the vehicle is traveling on the curved road after the process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle is suppressed [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. displaying information].
------------------Claim 18--------------------------------------
A control device comprising:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions [high level of generality and generally linking]; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to [high level of generality and generally linking]:
acquire a target speed during traveling on a curved road located in front of a vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. data collection],
determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle [mental process], and
suppress a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is greater than the target speed and the object speed is less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. data gathering/processing],
cause an output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is greater than the target speed and the object speed is not less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [insignificant extra-solution activity i.e. displaying information].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 6 and 18 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claim 6 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The examiner submits that the limitations
Determining whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle,
constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. For example,
A person can mentally compare two numbers and determine if the speed of the vehicle is less than or equal to a value
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions; and one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to,” the examiner submits that these limitations are merely using a general computer to implement an abstract idea. The computer is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitation of “suppressing a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle” the examiner submits that the suppressing step is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The suppressing step amounts to mere data gathering/processing by determining whether or not to send data to be displayed.
Regarding the additional limitation of “cause an output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle” the examiner submits that the output of information is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The output information step amounts to merely displaying information.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, the claim 6 and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The additional limitation of “outputting information to a driver” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely displaying information.
Therefore, dependent claims 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 6 and 18. Therefore, claims 6-7 and 18 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harda (US PGPUB 2017/0267248).
Regarding claim 6, Harda teaches A control device comprising [Harda ¶ 0141 "vehicle control arrangement 1"]:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions [Harda ¶ 0141 "associated memory"]; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to [Harda ¶ 0141 "one or more appropriately programmed processors (e.g., one or more microprocessors including central processing units (CPU)) and associated memory, which may include stored operating system software, firmware and/or application software executable by the processor(s) for controlling operation thereof and/or for performing the particular algorithms represented by the various functions and/or operations described herein, including interaction between and/or cooperation with each other."]:
acquire a target speed during traveling on a curved road located in front of a vehicle [Harda ¶ 0097 "The vehicle control arrangement 1 may further comprise a processing unit 25 configured to determine a reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature wherein the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform the reduction of the velocity to the determined reduced velocity. The processing unit 25 may be configured to determine the reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature such that the reduced velocity is determined to a lower velocity in cases of higher degree of curvatures and to a higher reduced velocity in cases of lower degree of curvatures of upcoming curve sections 15." The reduced velocity is the same as the target speed because the more aggressive the curvature, the higher the reduced velocity and the target speed is lower to avoid accidents.],
suppress a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Harda ¶ 0098 "As a result, the vehicle control arrangement 1 will not disturb occupants with unexpected and unjustifiable reductions of velocity, and will not increase travel time to a destination by performing reductions of velocity in cases of upcoming curve sections 15 having a degree of curvature being below the degree of curvature threshold value." and ¶ 0106 "The human machine interface 28 may be arranged to output the request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 only in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23." There is only one case where there is output to request gripping of a steering wheel. Therefore, in the other possible cases, the output/request is suppressed.].
cause the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle if it is determined that a condition in which the speed of the vehicle can be increased is satisfied when the vehicle is traveling on the curved road after the process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle is suppressed [Harda ¶ 0093 “The vehicle control arrangement 1 further comprises an upcoming road geometry detecting unit 13 arranged to detect presence of an upcoming curve section 15 of a road 17 on which the road vehicle 3 is traveling.” Harda teaches detecting an upcoming curve section. The claim requires the vehicle to be traveling on a curved road. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a curved road can include multiple curved sections. Therefore, the method of Harda would suppress the proposal for gripping the steering wheel on a curved road when coming to a first curve section, but then output the proposal for gripping the steering wheel when a second curve section of the curved road has a higher degree of curvature.]
Harda does not explicitly disclose determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle. However, Harda does teach determining a reduction of the velocity [Harda ¶ 0098 "According to some embodiments, the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to only perform the reduction of the velocity in cases where a degree of curvature of an upcoming curve section 15 exceeds a degree of curvature threshold value. Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which only performs a reduction of the velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case of presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature, exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to derive a target speed based on the degree of curvature. The reduced velocity is determined based on the current vehicle speed. If the vehicle speed is greater than the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be positive whereas if the vehicle speed is less than or equal to the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be zero. It would have been obvious to modify Harda such that the vehicle speed is compared to a target speed to improve safety and avoid unnecessarily low velocities through curve sections having a low degree of curvature [Harda ¶ 0049].
Regarding claim 7, Harda teaches claim 6. Harda does not explicitly teach wherein the condition is some or all of the following conditions:
(1) a condition in which there is a space for accelerating the vehicle and increasing the speed of the vehicle in front of the vehicle,
(2) a condition in which a distance from a position of the vehicle to an exit of the curved road is greater than or equal to a threshold value, and
(3) a condition in which a target speed of a case where the steering wheel has
been gripped is greater than a target speed of a case where the steering wheel has not been gripped and the target speed of the case where the steering wheel has been gripped is greater than a current speed of the vehicle by a threshold value or more.
However, it was well-known in the art that if there is space to accelerate a vehicle, then the vehicle can increase its speed. It would have been obvious to modify Harda to output a proposal for gripping the steering wheel if there is room to accelerate the vehicle in order to increase usability by giving drives the option to increase the speed of the vehicle by placing at last one hand on the steering wheel [Harda ¶ 0111].
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harda in view of Asano (US PGPUB 2022/0324447).
Regarding claim 1, Harda teaches A control device comprising [Harda ¶ 0141 "vehicle control arrangement 1"]:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions [Harda ¶ 0141 "associated memory"]; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to [Harda ¶ 0141 "one or more appropriately programmed processors (e.g., one or more microprocessors including central processing units (CPU)) and associated memory, which may include stored operating system software, firmware and/or application software executable by the processor(s) for controlling operation thereof and/or for performing the particular algorithms represented by the various functions and/or operations described herein, including interaction between and/or cooperation with each other."]:
acquire a target speed during traveling on a curved road located in front of a vehicle [Harda ¶ 0097 "The vehicle control arrangement 1 may further comprise a processing unit 25 configured to determine a reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature wherein the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform the reduction of the velocity to the determined reduced velocity. The processing unit 25 may be configured to determine the reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature such that the reduced velocity is determined to a lower velocity in cases of higher degree of curvatures and to a higher reduced velocity in cases of lower degree of curvatures of upcoming curve sections 15." The reduced velocity is the same as the target speed because the more aggressive the curvature, the higher the reduced velocity and the target speed is lower to avoid accidents.],
suppress a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Harda ¶ 0098 "As a result, the vehicle control arrangement 1 will not disturb occupants with unexpected and unjustifiable reductions of velocity, and will not increase travel time to a destination by performing reductions of velocity in cases of upcoming curve sections 15 having a degree of curvature being below the degree of curvature threshold value." and ¶ 0106 "The human machine interface 28 may be arranged to output the request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 only in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23." There is only one case where there is output to request gripping of a steering wheel. Therefore, in the other possible cases, the output/request is suppressed.].
cause the vehicle to travel on the curved road at a first speed when the vehicle travels on the curved road in a gripping state in which the driver is gripping the steering wheel [Harda ¶ 111 "Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which increases the velocity of the road vehicle 3, after the initiation of reduction of velocity, if an occupant places at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23. Thereby, occupants of the road vehicle 3 are given the option to increase velocity of the road vehicle 3, by placing at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."], and
cause the vehicle to travel on the curved road at a second speed lower than the first speed when the vehicle travels on the curved road in a non-gripping state in which
the driver is not gripping the steering wheel [Harda ¶ 0112 "the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform a reduction of velocity of the road vehicle 3 to a lower velocity in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23, than in cases where presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."], and
wherein the target speed is the second speed corresponding to the non-gripping state or a speed based on the second speed [Harda ¶ 0098 "According to some embodiments, the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to only perform the reduction of the velocity in cases where a degree of curvature of an upcoming curve section 15 exceeds a degree of curvature threshold value. Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which only performs a reduction of the velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case of presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature, exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."].
Harda does not explicitly disclose determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle. However, Harda does teach determining a reduction of the velocity [Harda ¶ 0098 "According to some embodiments, the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to only perform the reduction of the velocity in cases where a degree of curvature of an upcoming curve section 15 exceeds a degree of curvature threshold value. Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which only performs a reduction of the velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case of presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature, exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to derive a target speed based on the degree of curvature. The reduced velocity is determined based on the current vehicle speed. If the vehicle speed is greater than the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be positive whereas if the vehicle speed is less than or equal to the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be zero. It would have been obvious to modify Harda such that the vehicle speed is compared to a target speed to improve safety and avoid unnecessarily low velocities through curve sections having a low degree of curvature [Harda ¶ 0049].
Harda does not teach wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to: determine whether or not the set speed is greater than or equal to a first predetermined value with respect to the target speed, determine whether or not the set speed is greater than or equal to a second predetermined value with respect to the target speed, and suppress a process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle when the set speed is not greater than or equal to the first predetermined value with respect to the target speed or when the set speed is not greater than or equal to the second predetermined value with respect to the target speed, and wherein the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value are different speeds.
However, in a related field of invention, Asano does teach wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to:
determine whether or not the set speed is greater than or equal to a first predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0050 "First, the hands-on request threshold value is set to be larger in the second control mode than in the first control mode. Specifically, the hands-on request threshold value in the first control mode is set to X [kph], whereas the hands-on request threshold value in the second control mode set to X+α [kph] that is larger than that in the first control mode by α [kph]."],
determine whether or not the set speed is greater than or equal to a second predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0051 "The TD threshold value is larger than the hands-on request threshold value, and the TD threshold value in the second control mode is larger than the TD threshold value in the first control mode. Specifically, the TD threshold value in the first control mode is set to Y [kph], whereas the TD threshold value in the second control mode is set to Y+β [kph] that is larger than that in the first control mode by β [kph]. Y is greater than X, and Y+β is greater than X+α."], and
suppress a process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle when the set speed is not greater than or equal to the first predetermined value with respect to the target speed or when the set speed is not greater than or equal to the second predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0037 "In the hands-on request determination, the speed control unit 140 compares the speed error with a predetermined hands-on request threshold value. When the speed error exceeds the hands-on request threshold value, a hands-on request is output to the speed control unit 140 and the system status control unit 110."], and
wherein the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value are different speeds [Asano ¶ 0050 -0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the reduction of velocity of the vehicle for an upcoming curve as taught by Harda with using a hands-on request threshold value and a TD threshold value as taught by Asano in order to optimize the frequence of notifications issued to the driver and enhance user experience [Asano ¶ 0006].
Regarding claim 4, Harda and Asano teach the control device according to claim 1. Asano further teaches wherein the second predetermined value is a speed less than the first predetermined value [Asano ¶ 0037 "The TD threshold value is set to a value larger than the hands-on request threshold value."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the reduction of velocity of the vehicle for an upcoming curve as taught by Harda with using a hands-on request threshold value and a TD threshold value as taught by Asano in order to optimize the frequence of notifications issued to the driver and enhance user experience [Asano ¶ 0006].
Regarding claim 5, Harda and Asano teach claim 1. Harda further teaches wherein the speed of the vehicle is a speed derived on the basis of a speed in a previous predetermined period [Harda ¶ 0056 "determining the first threshold distance at least on the basis of the curvature of the upcoming curve section and a current velocity of the road vehicle, using the threshold determining unit" The current velocity is used which is determined previously to the curvature threshold.]
Regarding claim 10, Harda and Asano teach claim 1. Harda further teaches wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to: cause the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle if it is determined that a condition in which the speed of the vehicle can be increased is satisfied when the vehicle is traveling on the curved road after the process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle is suppressed [Harda ¶ 0093 “The vehicle control arrangement 1 further comprises an upcoming road geometry detecting unit 13 arranged to detect presence of an upcoming curve section 15 of a road 17 on which the road vehicle 3 is traveling.” Harda teaches detecting an upcoming curve section. The claim requires the vehicle to be traveling on a curved road. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a curved road can include multiple curved sections. Therefore, the method of Harda would suppress the proposal for gripping the steering wheel on a curved road when coming to a first curve section, but then output the proposal for gripping the steering wheel when a second curve section of the curved road has a higher degree of curvature.]
Regarding claim 11, Harda and Asano teach the control device according to claim 10. Harda and Asano do not explicitly teach wherein the condition is some or all of the following conditions: (1) a condition in which there is a space for accelerating the vehicle and increasing the speed of the vehicle in front of the vehicle, (2) a condition in which a distance from a position of the vehicle to an exit of the curved road is greater than or equal to a threshold value, and (3) a condition in which a target speed of a case where the steering wheel has been gripped is greater than a target speed of a case where the steering wheel has not been gripped and the target speed of the case where the steering wheel has been gripped is greater than a current speed of the vehicle by a threshold value or more.
However, it was well-known in the art that if there is space to accelerate a vehicle, then the vehicle can increase its speed. It would have been obvious to modify Harda and Asano to output a proposal for gripping the steering wheel if there is room to accelerate the vehicle in order to increase usability by giving drives the option to increase the speed of the vehicle by placing at last one hand on the steering wheel [Harda ¶ 0111].
Regarding claim 14, Harda and Asano teach claim 1. Asano further teaches wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to: suppress the process of causing the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle when the speed of the vehicle that is the object speed is greater than the target speed and less than or equal to a first predetermined value with respect to the target speed or when the set speed of the automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle is greater than the target speed and less than or equal to a second predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0036 "When the speed error between the target speed and the actual speed becomes large, there is a possibility that the autonomous driving system 100 cannot continue autonomous driving due to environmental conditions or a malfunction of the autonomous driving system 100. Therefore, the speed control unit 140 executes the speed control so as to cause the actual speed to follow the target speed, and at the same time, executes a hands-on request determination and a TD determination based on the speed error between the target speed and the actual speed. The hands-on request determination is a determination as to whether to request the driver to perform hands-on. The TD determination is a determination as to whether to request transfer of the driving authority (TD) from the autonomous driving system 100 to the driver."], and cause the output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping the steering wheel of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle when the speed of the vehicle that is at the object speed is greater than the target speed and exceeds the first predetermined value with respect to the target speed and further the set speed is greater than the target speed and exceeds the second predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0037 "When the speed error exceeds the hands-on request threshold value, a hands-on request is output to the speed control unit 140 and the system status control unit 110. "].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the reduction of velocity of the vehicle for an upcoming curve as taught by Harda with using a hands-on request threshold value and a TD threshold value as taught by Asano in order to optimize the frequence of notifications issued to the driver and enhance user experience [Asano ¶ 0006].
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform on the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Harda teaches A control device comprising [Harda ¶ 0141 "vehicle control arrangement 1"]:
a storage medium storing computer-readable instructions [Harda ¶ 0141 "associated memory"]; and
one or more processors connected to the storage medium, the processor executing the computer-readable instructions to [Harda ¶ 0141 "one or more appropriately programmed processors (e.g., one or more microprocessors including central processing units (CPU)) and associated memory, which may include stored operating system software, firmware and/or application software executable by the processor(s) for controlling operation thereof and/or for performing the particular algorithms represented by the various functions and/or operations described herein, including interaction between and/or cooperation with each other."]:
acquire a target speed during traveling on a curved road located in front of a vehicle [Harda ¶ 0097 "The vehicle control arrangement 1 may further comprise a processing unit 25 configured to determine a reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature wherein the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform the reduction of the velocity to the determined reduced velocity. The processing unit 25 may be configured to determine the reduced velocity on the basis of the curvature such that the reduced velocity is determined to a lower velocity in cases of higher degree of curvatures and to a higher reduced velocity in cases of lower degree of curvatures of upcoming curve sections 15." The reduced velocity is the same as the target speed because the more aggressive the curvature, the higher the reduced velocity and the target speed is lower to avoid accidents.],
suppress a process of causing an output device to output information indicating a proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Harda ¶ 0098 "As a result, the vehicle control arrangement 1 will not disturb occupants with unexpected and unjustifiable reductions of velocity, and will not increase travel time to a destination by performing reductions of velocity in cases of upcoming curve sections 15 having a degree of curvature being below the degree of curvature threshold value." and ¶ 0106 "The human machine interface 28 may be arranged to output the request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 only in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23." There is only one case where there is output to request gripping of a steering wheel. Therefore, in the other possible cases, the output/request is suppressed.].
Harda does not explicitly disclose determine whether or not a speed of the vehicle or an object speed is less than or equal to a predetermined value with respect to the target speed, wherein the object speed is a set speed of automated speed control for automatically controlling the speed of the vehicle. However, Harda does teach determining a reduction of the velocity [Harda ¶ 0098 "According to some embodiments, the velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to only perform the reduction of the velocity in cases where a degree of curvature of an upcoming curve section 15 exceeds a degree of curvature threshold value. Thereby, a vehicle control arrangement 1 is provided which only performs a reduction of the velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case of presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected having a degree of curvature, exceeding a degree of curvature threshold value, and no presence is detected of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to derive a target speed based on the degree of curvature. The reduced velocity is determined based on the current vehicle speed. If the vehicle speed is greater than the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be positive whereas if the vehicle speed is less than or equal to the target speed, then the reduced velocity would be zero. It would have been obvious to modify Harda such that the vehicle speed is compared to a target speed to improve safety and avoid unnecessarily low velocities through curve sections having a low degree of curvature [Harda ¶ 0049].
Harda does not teach cause an output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is greater than the target speed and the object speed is not less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed.
However, in a related field of invention, Asada does teach cause an output device to output the information indicating the proposal for gripping a steering wheel of the vehicle to a driver of the vehicle when the object speed is greater than the target speed and the object speed is not less than or equal to the predetermined value with respect to the target speed [Asano ¶ 0037 "In the hands-on request determination, the speed control unit 140 compares the speed error with a predetermined hands-on request threshold value. When the speed error exceeds the hands-on request threshold value, a hands-on request is output to the speed control unit 140 and the system status control unit 110."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the reduction of velocity of the vehicle for an upcoming curve as taught by Harda with using a hands-on request threshold value and a TD threshold value as taught by Asano in order to optimize the frequence of notifications issued to the driver and enhance user experience [Asano ¶ 0006].
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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights