DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 have been amended. Claims 9-11 have been added.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/17/2026, with respect to claims 1-8 rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) of claims 1-8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-8 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claim 3 rejection under 35 USC 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments pertain to newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record and will be addressed in the detailed action below.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites: “The driver assist method according to claim 1 ...” – wherein a driver assist method is established by independent claim 7 and not claim 1, and should likely read “The driver assist method according to claim [1] 7 ...”.
Claim 11 recites: “The non-transitory storage medium according to claim 1 ...” – wherein a non-transitory storage medium is established by independent claim 8 and not claim 1, and should likely read “The non-transitory storage medium according to claim [1] 8 ...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata (20180178807, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Murata teaches a driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to:
collectively provide instructions for a plurality of driver assist settings included in a group, (Murata: “The actuators 50 are driving actuators for implementing driving operations, including basic vehicle operations like running, turning, and stopping. The actuators 50 include a drive actuator 51 for generating vehicle propulsion force, a braking actuator 52 for generating braking force, and a steering actuator 53 for generating steering force” ¶ 25, “The driving controller 15 has a drive assisting unit 15A that assists the driver perform driving operations” ¶ 39) the group being configured so that one or more of driver assist functions of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group (Murata: “the drive assisting unit 15A monitors vehicle state, vehicle surrounding conditions and the like based on signals from the sensor group 30 and outputs control signals to the actuators 50 so as to adjust operation amount, speed and the like of operating members based on the monitoring results. On the other hand, the ECU 10 disables the functions of the drive assisting unit 15A when a first recommended route is decided as the final target route” ¶ 40, see also ¶ 41,);
disable two or more of the driver assist functions included in the group based on driver information related to a driver of the vehicle (Murata: “the drive assisting unit 15A monitors vehicle state, vehicle surrounding conditions and the like based on signals from the sensor group 30 and outputs control signals to the actuators 50 so as to adjust operation amount, speed and the like of operating members based on the monitoring results” ¶ 40, “the drive assisting unit 15A performs case-specific drive assist actions respectively in a case where Route B or C is decided as the final target route for a driver of Class A driving skill, in a case where Route C is decided as the final target route for a driver of Class B driving skill, and in a case where Route D is decided as the final target route for a driver of Class C driving skill” ¶ 39, Note: Wherein it can be seen that the plurality of driver assist functions, actuators above, can be added or deleted from the group based on the specific case (driver information) of the vehicle); and
reflect a change of similar settings of a second driver assist function in response to depressing a reflect button on a screen to change settings of a first driver assist function (Murata: “when a single second recommended route is displayed and the driver accepts the second recommended route, the displayed second recommended route is decided as the final target route” ¶ 46, “the drive assisting unit 15A performs drive assist actions in proportion to divergence between a first recommended route and the target route (second recommended route). Namely, it performs drive assist actions so as to increase degree of intervention in proportion as degree of divergence is larger” ¶ 46, see also ¶ 28, 33 Note: Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim reads as applying similar changes to a second driver assist function, with respect to an input that changes a first driver assist function. Therefore, when a first route (contains driver assist functions as established above) is changed to a second route via an input, the driver assist functions can be seen to proportionally change (reflect) as well).
Regarding claim 2, Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to suggest the driver disable the two or more of the driver assist functions (Murata: “the final target route is decided by the driver's operating the input unit 45 or speaking into the microphone 22 to select one among them” ¶ 37, “the ECU 10 disables the functions of the drive assisting unit 15A when a first recommended route is decided as the final target route” ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 4, Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to disable all the driver assist functions based on the driver information (Murata: “The drive assisting unit 15A is enabled when the vehicle is driving in accordance with a second route and is disabled when the vehicle is driving in accordance with a first route (S5 and S9). Since the drive assisting unit 15A is therefore prevented from intervening in driving operations more than necessary, a favorable driving feel can be realized” ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 5, Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the driver information includes at least one piece of information of a driving preference and driving proficiency of the driver, acquired from a driver monitor configured to detect a condition of the driver (Murata: “The skill detecting unit 11 ascertains or detects driver driving skill based on driver data stored in advance in the memory unit 2 ...” ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 6, Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the driver information includes at least one piece of a driving preference and driving proficiency of the driver, acquired based on a digital key of the vehicle (Murata: “The skill detecting unit 11 ascertains or detects driver driving skill based on driver data stored in advance in the memory unit 2. The driver data include driver identification data (name and the like), and data related to driver driving proficiency, namely, individual driver-specific data such as time since acquiring license, driving frequency, vehicle total distance driven, total driving time, and so on” ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 8, Murata teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors (Murata: “The ECU 10 is constituted as a computer comprising a CPU or other computing unit 1, a memory unit 2 incorporating ROM, RAM and the like, and other peripheral circuits” ¶ 27) ...
In regards to the remainer of claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein reflecting the change includes changing of an alarm sound, changing of an activation timing, changing of an operating intensity (Murata: “the drive assisting unit 15A performs drive assist actions in proportion to divergence between a first recommended route and the target route (second recommended route). Namely, it performs drive assist actions so as to increase degree of intervention in proportion as degree of divergence is larger” ¶ 46), or any combination thereof.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 9, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Kim (20230082791, already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Murata fails to teach the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the two or more of the driver assist functions include at least one of a front collision damage reduction assist function and a stopped vehicle rear collision handling function, the front collision damage reduction assist function is a function related to assist of collision avoidance ahead of the vehicle or reduction of collision damage to a front of the vehicle, and the stopped vehicle rear collision handling function is a function in a case where another vehicle bumps into the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches of wherein the two or more of the driver assist functions include at least one of a front collision damage reduction assist function and a stopped vehicle rear collision handling function, the front collision damage reduction assist function is a function related to assist of collision avoidance ahead of the vehicle or reduction of collision damage to a front of the vehicle, and the stopped vehicle rear collision handling function is a function in a case where another vehicle bumps into the vehicle (Kim: “a vehicle-surrounding-detection based assistance function such as Forward Collision-avoidance Assist (FCA) function, Blind-spot Collision-Avoidance Assist (BCA) function, etc. (e.g. activation of a danger alert” ¶ 58).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the driving assist system of Murata so that it also includes the element of a front and rear collision assist, as taught by Kim, in order to improve vehicle behavior based on driver skill level (Kim: ¶ 54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daniel et al. (20220063607) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of driver assist function control.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
