CTNF 19/073,162 CTNF 97496 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The applicant’s claim to priority JP2024040486 on 03/14/2024 is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 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. Claims 1, 7, and 8 recite the following limitations (or limitations analogous to): “ A driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to: collectively provide instructions of settings with group, the settings being set to driver assist functions included in the group, and the group being configured so that the driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group; and disable two or more of the driver assist functions included in the group based on driver information related to a driver of the vehicle. ” Wherein the claimed limitations appear to contain several grammatical errors that create an indefinite claim structure. For the purposes of compact prosecution and clarity of the record, based on the system outlined in the Specification, the claimed limitations will be interpreted as follows: “ A driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to: collectively provide instructions of settings with within a group, the settings being set to a plurality of driver assist functions included in the group, and the group being configured so that the driver assist function functions of a vehicle is are allowed to be added to or deleted from the group; and disable two or more of the driver assist functions included in the group based on driver information related to a driver of the vehicle. ” Similarly for clarity, claim 2 will be interpreted as follows: “ The driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to suggest to the driver to disable the two or more of the driver assist functions .” The claims are indefinite because it is unclear as to what “ with group ” entails and the claim establishes “ driver assist functions ” but then refers to “ the driver assist function ”. Claims 3-6 are rejected for being dependent on the currently rejected claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata (20180178807) . Regarding claim 1 , Murata teaches a driver assist apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to: collectively provide instructions of settings with group, the settings being set to driver assist functions included in the group (Murata: “ The driving controller 15 has a drive assisting unit 15A that assists the driver perform driving operations ” ¶ 39), and the group being configured so that the driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group (Murata: “ 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); and 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). Regarding claim 2 , Murata teaches the driver assist apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are 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 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Kim (20230082791) . 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawate (20190094856) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of driver assistance systems . 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 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/073,162 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights