DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 7/22/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Takada et al. (JP 2014-133537).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendments to the specification address the concerns raised by the Examiner (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 8), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosure remains replete with errors such as missing words, unclear and ambiguous sentences, excessive verbosity, and non-idiomatic English language. Although a new list of objections has been provided below, the Examiner reemphasizes the guidance provided in the interview held on 6/26/2026 that these objections are not comprehensive, but are merely exemplary of the errors throughout the specification.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the amendments to the claims address the concerns raised by the Examiner (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 9-10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of the claims remains unclear because they do not use proper idiomatic English. It remains unclear in the claims how the driver assist function that is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group is related to the plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels are allowed to be changed; it remains unclear how the settings within a group are related to the assist levels; and it remains unclear what is allowed to be changed when the adverse condition is satisfied. Further, because the disclosure is replete with errors, as discussed above, the interpretations of the claims in light of the specification are also unclear. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amended drawings received on 7/22/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 7/22/2026. It is noted that Applicant’s submissions on 7/22/2026 do not appear to include amendments to the abstract, therefore, the previous objections are maintained.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
In line 2, the meaning of the phrase “provide instructions of settings with group” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. It is unclear if the instructions are for the settings themselves or for grouping the settings.
In lines 3-4, “settings to a plurality of the driver assist functions” should read “settings for a plurality of the driver assist functions”. This appears to be a typographical error.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification (page and line numbers correspond to the marked-up substitute specification submitted on 7/22/2026) are:
In paragraph 4, line 1, “Here, with the technology according to Japanese Patent No. 6460058” should read “With the technology according to Japanese Patent No. 6460058” to make it clear that paragraph 4 discusses a technology that is different from Applicant’s invention.
In paragraph 5, line 2, the meaning of the phrase “improving the convenience of a user for settings” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “improving the convenience of a user for configuring settings”.
In paragraph 11, line 4, “Then, the one or more processors are capable of providing instructions” should read “The one or more processors are capable of providing instructions” because the word “then” does not appear to indicate a sequence, a specific time, or a cause and effect.
In paragraph 11, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “with the driver assist apparatus, it is possible to aim at the safety of a user” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “with the driver assist apparatus, it is possible to increase the safety of a user”.
In paragraphs 18 and 19, lines 2-3 and 2, respectively, “collectively providing instructions of settings with group” should read “collectively providing instructions of settings within a group”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 23, lines 2-3, “The technology of the disclosure, as an assumption, adds a plurality of driver assist functions to a group” should read “The technology of the disclosure adds a plurality of driver assist functions to a group”. An assumption is something accepted as true without evidence, however, the entire disclosure is directed to adding a plurality of driver assist functions to groups and collectively providing instructions for settings to the driver assist functions.
In paragraph 23, lines 12-14, the meaning of the phrase “Collective setting is setting for driver assist functions that belong to a group and is setting of individual driver assist functions” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 23, lines 15-16, the meaning of the phrase “such a setting that the ‘acceleration change’ level of radar cruise control is set to ‘low’ is assigned” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The examiner recommends substituting the phrase “the ‘acceleration change’ level setting of a radar cruise control is set to ‘low’’”.
In paragraph 23, lines 16-17, the meaning of the phrase “collectively providing instructions for settings … by reflecting collective setting” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 24, line 3, it is unclear what the “above-described inconvenience” refers to.
In paragraph 25, lines 6-7, the meaning of the phrase “a screen … that allows a user to operate” is unclear because the sentence does not appear to be complete, therefore, it is unclear how the screen is intended to facilitate user operation. It is further unclear how the operation allowed by the screen relates to the user operations received by the switch interface.
In paragraph 27, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “a navigation function for map view using GPS” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “a navigation function for displaying a map using GPS”.
In paragraph 28, lines 9-10, the meaning of the phrase “the settings are reflected as collective setting of the group” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 28, line 18, the meaning of the phrase “showing collective setting of a group” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 28, line 18, “a group set last time” should read “the last group that was set” because no explicit sequence of setting different groups has been recited.
In paragraph 30, line 7, “performing operation to select icons” should read “performing operations to select icons”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 30, line 11, the meaning of the phrase “shows … a ‘safe setting’ group area (d2) as a group in setting” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 48, lines 1-2, the meaning of the phrase “acquires an operation of a user related to a group operated on the setting screen” is unclear because it is unclear how the group is operated. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “acquires an operation of a user related to a group displayed on the setting screen”.
In paragraph 48, lines 3-5, “include operation to select a group, operation to add a driver assist function to a group or delete a driver assist function from a group, and operation to change set values” should read “include an operation to select a group, an operation to add a driver assist function to a group or delete a driver assist function from a group, and an operation to change set values”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 48, line 5, the meaning of the sentence “A group is designated by operation.” is unclear because it is unclear whether designating a group is a standalone operation, or is related to the operation to add or delete a function to/from a group.
In paragraph 53, line 2, “when the other one of driver assist functions” should read “when the other one of the driver assist functions”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 53, line 4, “when one of driver assist functions” should read “when one of the driver assist functions”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 55, line 2, “in response to operation of a user” should read “in response to an operation of a user”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraphs 55 and 56, lines 3-4 and 9-10, respectively, the meaning of the phrase “notifies the user through the view on the multimedia device 14 in condition restriction control” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraphs 55, 56, 65, 67 and 71, lines 7, 12-13, 3-4, 3-4 and 4-5, respectively, the meaning of the phrase “as display control of condition restriction control” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 55, line 9, “serving as the underlying other one of driver assist functions” should read “serving as the underlying other one of the driver assist functions”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 56, line 4, “deletes the one of driver assist functions” should read “deletes the one of the driver assist functions”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 56, lines 7-8, “in response to operation of a user” should read “in response to an operation of a user”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 56, lines 13-15, the meaning of the phrase “ACC in eco-run mode that is one of the driver assist functions is attempted to be turned on while ACC in normal mode that is the other one of the driver assist functions is on” because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “ACC in eco-run mode is attempted to be turned on while ACC in normal mode is on”.
In paragraph 61, line 1, “acquires operation of the user” should read “acquires an operation of the user”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 65, lines 5-6, the meaning of the phrase “operation to satisfy the specific condition is suppressed and operation related to a group by the user can be acquired again” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 71, lines 8-9, “guided to perform operation” should read “guided to perform an operation”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 72, lines 9-10, the meaning of the phrase “assists in follow-up driving maintaining an inter-vehicle distance according to a vehicle speed” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “assists in following a vehicle by maintaining an inter-vehicle distance according to a vehicle speed”.
In paragraph 72, lines 11-12, the meaning of the sentence “There exist assist region expansion and eco-run mode (fuel saving ACC) as extended functions.” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggest substituting the sentence “Extended functions may exist such as assist region expansion and eco-run mode (fuel saving ACC).”
In paragraph 72, line 15, the subject of the phrase “improve its accuracy and performance” is unclear.
In paragraph 72, lines 17-18, the meaning of the sentence “An anxiety about the death of battery assumed as inconvenience in a battery EV can be reduced.” because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 72, line 23, “executes follow-up control” should read “executes following control”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 72, lines 24-25, “the vehicle repeats stop and start” should read “the vehicle repeatedly stops and starts”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 73, lines 13-14, “assists a driver in driving and in a scene, such as an ordinary road” should read “assists a driver in driving in a scene, such as an ordinary road”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 73, lines 24-25 and 27, the meaning of the phrase “turning off the accelerator” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggest substituting the phrase “letting of the accelerator”.
In paragraph 74, line 6, “an ease of turn” should read “an ease of turning”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 74, lines 20-21, the meaning of the sentence “An expansion of an available scene of EDSS is also assumed.” is unclear because it is unclear how a scene is expanded.
In paragraph 74, lines 23-24, the meaning of the phrase “EDSS is launched only during LTA is active when a driver abnormality is detected; however, EDSS is launched even when LTA is inactive” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 75, line 13, “perform departure avoidance operation” should read “perform a departure avoidance operation”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 75, line 15, the meaning of the sentence “The function has an addition of a function and extensibility of cooperation.” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 75, line 29, the meaning of the sentence “An addition of a reduced mode is assumed.” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 75, lines 30-31, the meaning of the sentence “Activation targets are narrowed according to a risk, reduced mode in which activation scenes are reduced is allowed to be selected” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 75, lines 31-32, the subject of the phrase “It is assumed to cooperate with a function” is unclear.
In paragraph 76, lines 3-4, the sentence “In other words, it is possible to update or add functions without driving to a dealer.” because the sentence merely restates the information of the preceding sentence.
In paragraph 76, lines 5-6, the meaning of the sentence “Expansion of an available range is assumed.” is unclear because it is unclear how the range is expanded.
In paragraph 76, lines 21-22, the meaning of the sentence “The function also has expandability of encountering accident supporting scenes.” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 76, lines 22-23, it is unclear how activating for an electric scooter assists in collision avoidance for an animal or a single structure.
In paragraph 77, lines 15-16, it is unclear what combination of factors must occur in addition to the vehicle being stopped for the host vehicle to start again.
In paragraph 79, lines 4-5, the meaning of the phrase “guide lines interlocking with a steering operation” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 80, lines 6-7, it is unclear how covering off-road ground is improved by the function.
In paragraph 80, line 13, “by notice with an alert” should read “by notification with an alert”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 81, lines 27-28, the meaning of the phrase “The function is assumed to work as a standard function by limiting to times when backing up” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 81, lines 29-30, the subject of the phrase “It is also assumed to suppress acceleration” is unclear.
In paragraph 82, lines 25-26, “issues entangling alert” should read “issues an entangling alert”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 83, line 22, “hazard lamp is blinked” should read “a hazard lamp is blinked”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 84, line 7, “In contrast to secondary collision brake” should read “In contrast to secondary collision braking”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 84, line 14, the meaning of the term “opt.HUD” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 84, line 24, the meaning of the term “opt.helpnet’ is unclear because it does not appear to be a registered trademark, as indicated.
In paragraph 84, line 30, it is unclear what is approved with voice recognition.
In paragraph 85, line 7, the acronym YrG should be defined.
In paragraph 85, lines 39-40, “adjusts the timings of alert and brake control to optimal ones” should read “adjusts the timings of alert and brake control to optimal values”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 85, lines 57-58, the meaning of the phrase “a whistle interval of buzzer” is unclear because a conventional buzzer does not whistle.
In paragraph 85, lines 59-60, “to be visually, aurally understandable” should read “to be visually and aurally understandable”.
In paragraph 86, line 37, “to early perform assist and notification” should read “to perform assist and notification early”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 91 and 92, lines 5 and 1, respectively, the meaning of the phrase “instructions to a group” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 93, lines 1, 3, 7, 9, 12 and 14, the meaning of the phrase “Instructions to the driver assist functions” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
In paragraph 94, lines 1-2, “setting information of the driver assist functions in the safe setting” should read “setting information of the driver assist functions in the safe setting group”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In paragraph 94, line 13, it is unclear what a control outline is because they are defined as control outlines.
In paragraph 95, lines 2-3, the meaning of the phrase “is illustrated as default setting of the detailed function” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner recommends substituting the phrase “are example default settings of the detailed function”.
In paragraph 253, lines 3-5, the meaning of the phrase “to exercise the functions of the snowy road assist function in providing instructions for settings to the snowy road assist function as the function of the control unit” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the colon should be removed, because using multiple colons in a single sentence is grammatically incorrect which makes it confusing to determine the hierarchical relationships between each limitation.
In claim 1, the indentation of lines 11-12 should be increased to make it clear which limitation they are associated with.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, the meaning of the phrase “the one or more processors being cause to perform further functions comprising” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests substituting the phrase “wherein the one or more processors are further caused to perform functions comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 2 and 9-12, the limitation “processors configured to … display, via depressing a custom button … and determine whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of the processor depressing a button. Paragraph 25 disclose that operations of a user regarding a driver assist function are received by a switch interface. Paragraph 28 discloses a user makes selections on a setting screen for setting driver assist functions. Paragraph 192 discloses a user depressing a suggestion execute button. Although the majority of the references to depressing a button in the disclosure are generally recited, there does not appear to any explicit disclosure of a processor performing the depressing, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret depressing a button on a screen as an action performed by a user.
Regarding claim 7, lines 1-2 and 9-12, the limitation “A driver assist method executed by a computer, the driver assist method comprising … displaying, via depressing a customize button … and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of the processor depressing a button, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3 and 10-13, the limitation “cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising … displaying, via depressing a customize button … and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” appears to be new matter because there does not appear to be disclosure of the processor depressing a button, as discussed above.
Regarding claims 9-11, lines 2-3, 1-3 and 2-3, respectively, the limitation “suppress[ing] activation of the plurality of driver assist functions due to erroneous detection of one or more sonars” appears to be new matter. Paragraph 253 discloses the CPU is capable of providing instructions to disable the driver assist functions that use the sonars, thus, in a situation in which an adverse condition is satisfied, e.g., a road is snowy, the driver assist functions are not activated. Although the disclosure recites suppressing activation due to erroneous sonar detections, the suppression is achieved by disabling the driver assist functions, regardless of whether an erroneous sonar detection actually occurs. Therefore, there does not appear to be disclosure of the processors/computer being configured to perform an explicit action of suppressing activation of the driver assist function in response to erroneous detection of one or more sonars.
Claim 2-6 and 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, lines 3-7, 3-7 and 4-8, respectively, the limitation “provid[e/ing] setting within a group, the group being configured so that a driver assist function is allowed to be added or deleted from the group, and the settings corresponding to a plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels … are allowed to be changed” renders each claim indefinite because the relationship is unclear between the driver assist function that is allowed to be added or deleted from the group and the plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels are allowed to be changed. Each claim recites a group with settings, a driver assist function that can be included in the group, and a plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels can be changed. Although the settings within a group correspond to the plurality of driver assist functions, it is unclear if the driver assist function that is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group is included in the plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels are allowed to be changed. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that each claim is directed to a single plurality of driver assist functions.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, lines 5-8, 5-8 and 6-9, respectively, the limitation “settings corresponding to a plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels … are allowed to be changed when at least one of an atmospheric phenomenon outside a vehicle and a condition of a road satisfies a predetermined adverse condition” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how the settings and changes are related. It is further unclear whether the assist levels may be changed when neither atmospheric phenomenon nor road conditions satisfy the adverse condition. It is further unclear whether the scope of the claim includes changing the assist levels, or is limited to merely allowing them to be changed under the adverse conditions. Paragraphs 228-230 appear to disclose, under adverse weather/road conditions, the control unit executes instructions to change the assist level settings by lowering operating intensity or advancing activation timing. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the system changing assist level settings when adverse conditions are detected.
Regarding claim 1, lines 2 and 9-12, the limitation “processors configured to … display, via depressing a custom button … and determine whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the processor depresses the custom button. As discussed above, the disclosure appears to indicate that it is the user that depresses the buttons, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to the processor receiving an indication that the customize button is depressed.
Regarding claim 5-6, lines 2-3 and 2-4, respectively, the limitation “disable a driver assist function … to exercise at least one driver assist function” renders the claim indefinite because the relationship between the disabled driver assist function and the exercised driver assist function is unclear. Therefore, it is further unclear how the disabled driver assist function is related to the driver assist function that is allowed to be added or deleted from the group in claim 1, line 4, or the plurality of driver assist functions allowed to be changed in claim 1, lines 5-7. Paragraphs 253 and 254 disclose disabling a group of driver assist functions that depend on the sonars and cameras, respectively, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to disabling at least one of the driver assist functions that uses a clearance sonar or camera.
Regarding claim 7, lines 1-2 and 9-12, the limitation “A driver assist method executed by a computer, the driver assist method comprising … displaying, via depressing a customize button … and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the computer depresses the custom button. As discussed above, the disclosure appears to indicate that it is the user that depresses the buttons, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to the computer receiving an indication that the customize button is depressed.
Regarding claim 8, lines 2-3 and 10-13, the limitation “cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising … displaying, via depressing a customize button … and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a … setting button” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the processor depresses the custom button. As discussed above, the disclosure appears to indicate that it is the user that depresses the buttons, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to the processor receiving an indication that the customize button is depressed.
Regarding claims 9-11, lines 2-3, 1-3 and 2-3, respectively, the limitation “suppress[ing] activation of the plurality of driver assist functions due to erroneous detection of one or more sonars” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear how the processor(s)/computer suppress activation due to erroneous detection. Paragraph 253 appears to disclose that when the adverse condition is satisfied, specific driver assist functions do not activate, therefore, erroneous activations are suppressed. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to not activating a group of driver assist functions that use a sonar when an adverse condition is satisfied.
Regarding claims 9-11, lines 2-4, 1-3 and 2-4, respectively, the limitation “suppress[ing] activation … in which the plurality of driver assist functions … do not activate” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the situation in which the functions in the second group do not activate applies to the activation of the functions or the erroneous detection of the sonars. As discussed above, suppressing activation of functions dues to erroneous detection of sonars appears to be the result of not activating the functions that rely on sonar when a predetermined adverse condition is detected, therefore, for the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to not activating a group of driver assist functions that use a sonar when an adverse condition is satisfied.
Claims 2-6 and 9-11 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP § 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP § 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG ONE): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG TWO): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP § 2106.05
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a driver assist apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP § 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP § 2106.04(a)-(c). Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the analysis. Claim 1 recites:
A driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to:
collectively provide instructions of settings within a group, the group being configured so that a driver assist function is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group, and the settings corresponding to a plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels related to at least one of an operating intensity and a timing of activation are allowed to be changed when at least one of an atmospheric phenomenon outside a vehicle and a condition of a road satisfies a predetermined adverse condition;
display, via depressing a customize button, the plurality of driver assist functions set in the group; and
determine whether a customize operation is received [mental process] by depressing a snowy road assist setting button.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, as best understood, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine whether a customize operation is received” in the context of this claim, as best understood, encompasses a person receiving state information about a button and making a simple judgement of whether the button is pressed. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). 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 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 additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to [applying the abstract idea using a generic computer component]:
collectively provide instructions of settings within a group, the group being configured so that a driver assist function is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group, and the settings corresponding to a plurality of driver assist functions of which assist levels related to at least one of an operating intensity and a timing of activation are allowed to be changed when at least one of an atmospheric phenomenon outside a vehicle and a condition of a road satisfies a predetermined adverse condition [insignificant post-solution activity (sending data);
via depressing a customize button [pre-solution activity (receiving data), as best understood], display the plurality of driver assist functions set in the group [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying data)]; and
determine whether a customize operation is received by depressing a snowy road assist setting button [pre-solution activity (receiving data), as best understood].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations, as best understood, do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “…provide instructions of settings…”, “…depressing … a button” and “display … the plurality of … functions…”, the examiner submits that the limitation(s), as best understood, is/are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (apparatus comprising one or more processors) to perform the process. In particular, the provide instructions step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as best understood, as a general means of sending an instruction to a driver assist function to store a setting value, see para. 23), and amounts to merely sending data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The button depressing steps are recited a high level of generality (i.e., as best understood, as a general means of receiving button state information), and amount to merely receiving data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The display step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of displaying certain functions), and amounts to merely displaying data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors” is/are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer graphical user interface function(s)) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements, as best understood, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining whether a customize operation is received amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Also discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitation(s) of “…provide instructions of settings…”, “…depressing … a button” and “display … the plurality of … functions…” is/are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 except drawn to a driver assist method and a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., a process and a machine) which falls under one of the statutory categories in step 1. Therefore, claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under step 2 for the same reasons above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 9-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. It is noted that although the dependent claims recite changing settings and disabling functions, these actions do not appear related to the determination that a customize operation is received, therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 9-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejections of claims 1 and 7-8.
Therefore, claims 1-11 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga et al. (US 2018/0004205) in view of Takada et al. (JP 2014-133537), hereinafter Matsunaga and Takada, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, as best understood, Matsunaga discloses a driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors (Matsunaga; para. 53: electronic control unit 80 is a microcomputer provided with components connected with each other by bidirectional buses such as a center processing unit) configured to collectively provide settings within a group (Matsunaga; para. 65: The group of packages relating to the weather conditions roughly divides weather conditions into the nine conditions of “clear”, “rain”, “heavy rain”, “snow”, “heavy snow”, “fog”, “thick fog”, “wind”, and “strong wind” and packages permissions for individual driving assistance operations for each of the weather conditions.), the group being configured so that a driver assist function is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group (Matsunaga; para. 64: in FIG. 5 to FIG. 10, the O marks show permission to perform the driving assistance operations, while the X marks show no permission to perform the driving assistance operations), and the settings corresponding to a plurality of driver assist functions (Matsunaga; para. 62: driving assistance packages which package permissions for pluralities of driving assistance operations are extracted based on at least one of the surrounding environment information) of which assist levels related to at least one of an operating intensity and a timing of activation are allowed to be changed (Matsunaga; para. 63: driving assistance operations able to be performed by combining the selected unit packages are determined) when at least one of an atmospheric phenomenon outside a vehicle and a condition of a road satisfies a predetermined adverse condition (Matsunaga; para. 65: FIG. 5 is a view showing the group of packages relating to the conditions of the weather.).
Matsunaga does not explicitly disclose displaying, via depressing a customize button, the plurality of driver assist functions set in the group; and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a snowy road assist setting button.
Takada, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle control settings), discloses displaying, via depressing a customize button, a plurality of driver assist functions set in a group (Takada; para. 219: As shown in Figure 28, the characteristics of the customization mode can be individually changed by pressing (touching) the "characteristic button" corresponding to each function displayed on the characteristic setting screen shown on the lower display operation unit 42 of the display operation unit 40a of the DCU 40.); and determining whether a customize operation is received by depressing a snowy road assist setting button (Takada; para. 221: as shown in Figure 28, to change the powertrain characteristics, press the "Torque Response" button displayed in the settings screen to display the powertrain characteristics settings screen. On this screen, you can change the characteristics by pressing the characteristic buttons such as "Standard," "Sport," "Eco," and "Snow."; fig. 28: several screens are presented with buttons for customizing settings of driver assist functions of a PERSONAL SNOW mode, additionally, the torque response may be set to a snow mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the settings of the driving assistance packages suitable for weather conditions, including snow, displayed by the electronic control unit of Matsunaga to be displayed in response to pressing a button, and to provide buttons for changing the individual settings, as disclosed by Takada, to yield the predictable result of allowing a driver to personalize their driving assistance features.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses the one or more processors are further configured to execute at least one of lowering of the operating intensity and advancing of the timing of activation as a change of the assist level (Matsunaga; para. 60: driving assistance operations not required by the driver are not automatically performed at the time of automated driving).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses the one or more processors are further configured to disable (Matsunaga; fig. 5: provision of surrounding situation) a driver assist function that uses a recognition image from a camera to exercise at least on driver assist function among the plurality of the driver assist functions (Matsunaga; para. 36: The outside camera 13 performs image processing of the captured image to detect information on obstacles in front of the vehicle 1, traffic information in the surroundings of the vehicle 1 (lane width, road shape, road signs, white lines, statuses of traffic lights, etc.), the yaw angle (relative direction of vehicle 1 to running lane), running information of vehicle 1 (for example, offset of vehicle 1 from center of running lane), meteorological information in the surroundings of vehicle 1 (information on rain, snow, fog, etc.), etc. The outside camera 13 transmits the detected information as surrounding environment information to the electronic control unit 80.), and the camera is configured to recognize an area around the vehicle (Matsunaga; para. 36: outside camera 13 captures an image of the field in front of the vehicle).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2021/0399415).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses the plurality of the driver assist functions further includes a communication function (Matsunaga; para. 40: The external information receiving apparatus 16 receives, for example, congestion information and meteorological information (weather, air temperature, wind speed, and other information) and other such external information sent from a road traffic information communication system center or other external communication center. The external information receiving apparatus 16 transmits the received external information as surrounding environment information to the electronic control unit 80.); and the one or more processors are further configured to enable the communication (Matsunaga; fig. 5: provision of congestion information).
Matsunaga, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose communication between the vehicle and at least one of another vehicle and a roadside device installed on a road.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor (driver assistance systems), discloses communication between a vehicle and at least one of another vehicle and a roadside device installed on a road (Zhang; paras. 44-45: infrastructure element 210 can be placed, typically permanently fixed, at a location in area 225, e.g., mounted to a stationary object such as a pole, post, road overpass, sign, etc. As shown in FIG. 2A, multiple vehicles 100 on the road(s) 230 may be within the coverage area 225 of the infrastructure element 210 … The infrastructure element computer 220 may be programmed to transmit, via the wireless network V2X, messages including data such as weather data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the weather information sent to the vehicle from the external road traffic information communication center of Matsunaga, as modified, to be sent from a roadside infrastructure element, as disclosed by Zhang, to yield the predictable result of providing accurate local weather conditions to the vehicle control system.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses the one or more processors are further configured to execute at least one of increasing of a notification frequency to the vehicle and advancing of a timing of notification to the vehicle as a change of a notification level related to at least one of the notification frequency and the timing of notification (Matsunaga; fig. 5: vehicle proximity alarm [e.g., when the function is given permission to perform after previously not having permission to perform, alarm frequency is increased and notification timing is advanced).
Claim(s) 5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsunaga in view of Takada as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Himi (US 2017/0008517).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses the one or more processors are further configured to disable (Matsunaga; fig. 5: provision of surrounding situation) a driver assist function that uses a radar to exercise at least one driver assist function among the plurality of the driver assist functions (Matsunaga; para. 34: milliwave radar sensors 12 emit electrical waves to the surroundings of the vehicle 1 (in the present embodiment, to the front, rear, and sides of the vehicle 1) and measure the distances to obstacles in the surroundings of the vehicle 1 and relative speeds with the obstacles from the reflected waves. The milliwave radar sensors 12 transmit the results of measurement as surrounding environment information to the electronic control unit).
Matsunaga, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a driver assist function that uses a clearance sonar to measure the surrounding environment.
Himi, in the same field of endeavor (driver assistance systems), discloses a driver assist function that uses a clearance sonar to measure the surrounding environment (Himi; fig. 7: S105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the measurements of surrounding environment information received by the ECU of Matsunaga, as modified, to include measurements from a clearance sonar in order to determine, for example, if there is a screen behind the vehicle, as disclosed by Himi, with the motivation of determining when a mirror ghost is detected by the radar sensors (Himi; para. 106) thereby restricting false alarms (Himi; para. 108).
Regarding claims 9-11, as best understood, Matsunaga, as modified, discloses suppressing activation of the plurality of driver assist functions due to erroneous detection of one or more radars (Matsunaga; fig. 5: provision of surrounding situation [i.e., activation of the provision of surrounding situation by the radar is suppressed under the indicated weather conditions thereby suppressing activation due to erroneous detections]; para. 34: milliwave radar sensors 12 emit electrical waves to the surroundings of the vehicle 1 (in the present embodiment, to the front, rear, and sides of the vehicle 1) and measure the distances to obstacles in the surroundings of the vehicle 1 and relative speeds with the obstacles from the reflected waves. The milliwave radar sensors 12 transmit the results of measurement as surrounding environment information to the electronic control unit) in which the plurality of driver assist functions included in a second group do not activate in a situation in which the predetermined adverse condition is satisfied (Matsunaga; paras. 64-65: in FIG. 5 to FIG. 10, the O marks show permission to perform the driving assistance operations, while the X marks show no permission to perform the driving assistance operations … FIG. 5 is a view showing the group of packages relating to the conditions of the weather. The group of packages relating to the weather conditions roughly divides weather conditions into the nine conditions of “clear”, “rain”, “heavy rain”, “snow”, “heavy snow”, “fog”, “thick fog”, “wind”, and “strong wind” and packages permissions for individual driving assistance operations for each of the weather conditions. For this reason, the group of packages relating to the weather conditions includes nine unit packages. In the present embodiment, the weather conditions during automated driving are specified based on the meteorological information around the vehicle 1 detected by the outside camera 13 and the meteorological information included in external information received by the external information receiving apparatus 16.).
Matsunaga, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a driver assist function that uses a clearance sonar to measure the surrounding environment.
Himi, in the same field of endeavor (driver assistance systems), discloses a driver assist function that uses a clearance sonar to measure the surrounding environment (Himi; fig. 7: S105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the measurements of surrounding environment information received by ECU of Matsunaga, as modified, to include measurements from a clearance sonar in order to determine, for example, if there is a screen behind the vehicle, as disclosed by Himi, with the motivation of determining when a mirror ghost is detected by the radar sensors (Himi; para. 106) thereby restricting false alarms (Himi; para. 108).
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights