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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendment to claim 16 overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. 2015/0151756 A1) in view of Pierfelice et al. (U.S. 2021/0331690 A1).
Claim 1, Han teaches:
A vehicle speed control device (Han, Fig. 1: 100) comprising:
a processor (Han, Fig. 1: 116, The controller 116 is functionally equivalent to a processor.); and
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain information (Han, Fig. 1: 112, 114, Paragraphs [0049-0055], The safe speed determining unit 112 and the vehicle speed sensor 114 collect speed data regarding the travel of the vehicle, which is used by controller 116 to operate the engine 118, brake 120, cruise controller 122, and/or alarm unit 124.) regarding a curved road in a travel direction of a vehicle (Han, Paragraphs [0034] and [0049], The safe speed determining unit 112 receives the extracted curvature of a forward path along which the vehicle will travel from digital map 104.); and
output, under a predetermined condition, before the vehicle enters the curved road (Han, Paragraphs [0056-0057], The controller 116 determines whether the vehicle’s current speed is above the determined safe speed based on the curvature of the forward path, and effectively decelerates the vehicle prior to the vehicle reaching the location where the safe speed has been set. An example of a predetermined condition includes the vehicle’s current speed being greater than the determined safe speed.), a deceleration confirmation signal for confirming, with an occupant of the vehicle, whether reduction of vehicle speed is necessary (Han, Paragraph [0062], When the controller 116 controls the speed of the vehicle based on the safe speed and the current vehicle speed, the alarm unit 124 may display that the speed of the vehicle is controlled based on the safe speed. The signal generated by the controller 116 to control the speed of the vehicle is a deceleration confirmation signal that causes the alarm unit 124 to display the speed of the vehicle.);
control the vehicle speed without burdening the occupant when performing the control of the vehicle speed (Han, Paragraphs [0062] and [0065], The vehicle may control the deceleration and only activates the alarm unit 124 to inform the user that the deceleration is being controlled by the vehicle, i.e. without the user needing to decelerate the vehicle.).
Han does not specifically teach:
A memory including a program that, when executed by the processor;
receive, from the occupant of the vehicle, an answer regarding a necessity for the reduction of the vehicle speed, the answer including at least one of an audio input from the occupant or an input from the occupant to an input device; and
control the vehicle speed based on the answer.
Pierfelice teaches:
A memory (Pierfelice, Fig. 2A: 212) including a program (Pierfelice, Paragraph [0021]) that, when executed by the processor (Pierfelice, Fig. 2A: 204):
receive, from the occupant of the vehicle, an answer regarding a necessity for the reduction of the vehicle speed, the answer including at least one of an audio input from the occupant or an input from the occupant to an input device (Pierfelice, Fig. 3: 360-370, Paragraph [0045], The system generates an input alert to the user via the communication device and/or the wearable device (see Pierfelice, Paragraphs [0015-0016]). The vehicle controller waits to receive an input from the user to change the current vehicle data and/or interior condition, e.g. increase or decrease a speed of the vehicle. The system utilizes user input logic 226 to provide a change or modification in the vehicle (see Pierfelice, Paragraphs [0028-0029]).); and
control the vehicle speed based on the answer (Pierfelice, Paragraph [0045], The vehicle controller waits to receive an input from the user to change the current vehicle data and/or interior condition, e.g. increase or decrease a speed of the vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Han by integrating the teaching of the system in Pierfelice.
The motivation would be to ensure that a user, e.g. a passenger, receives alerts generated by the vehicle (see Pierfelice, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 15, Han in view of Pierfelice further teaches:
A vehicle speed control system comprising:
the vehicle speed control device according to claim 1 (Han, Fig. 1: 100);
a detection device (Han, Fig. 1: 112) that outputs, as part of the vehicle speed control device, detection information regarding the curved road and a speed of the vehicle (Han, Paragraph [0049-0052], The safe speed determining unit 112 determines a safe speed for the vehicle to travel in light of the curved road.); and
a notification device (Han, Fig. 1: 124) that notifies the occupant of confirmation as to whether reduction of the vehicle speed is necessary, based on the deceleration confirmation signal (Han, Paragraph [0062], Based on the controller 116 controlling the speed of the vehicle based on the safe speed and the current vehicle speed, the alarm unit 124 displays that the speed of the vehicle is controlled based on the safe speed.).
Han in view of Pierfelice does not explicitly teach:
A detection device that outputs, to the vehicle speed control device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to make separable the safe determining unit 112 from the vehicle speed control device 100, such that the output of the safe determining unit 112 is input into the vehicle speed control device 100. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would thus yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 16, Han teaches:
An information processing method (Han, Fig. 1: 100) comprising:
obtaining, by a processor (Han, Fig. 1: 116, The controller 116 is functionally equivalent to a processor.), information regarding a curved road in a travel direction of a vehicle (Han, Paragraphs [0034] and [0049], The safe speed determining unit 112 receives the extracted curvature of a forward path along which the vehicle will travel from digital map 104.); and
outputting, by the processor and under a predetermined condition, before the vehicle enters the curved road (Han, Paragraphs [0056-0057], The controller 116 determines whether the vehicle’s current speed is above the determined safe speed based on the curvature of the forward path, and effectively decelerates the vehicle prior to the vehicle reaching the location where the safe speed has been set. An example of a predetermined condition includes the vehicle’s current speed being greater than the determined safe speed.), a deceleration confirmation signal for confirming, with an occupant of the vehicle, whether reduction of vehicle speed is necessary (Han, Paragraph [0062], When the controller 116 controls the speed of the vehicle based on the safe speed and the current vehicle speed, the alarm unit 124 may display that the speed of the vehicle is controlled based on the safe speed. The signal generated by the controller 116 to control the speed of the vehicle is a deceleration confirmation signal that causes the alarm unit 124 to display the speed of the vehicle.);
controlling, by the processor, the vehicle speed without burdening the occupant when performing the controlling of the vehicle speed (Han, Paragraphs [0062] and [0065], The vehicle may control the deceleration and only activates the alarm unit 124 to inform the user that the deceleration is being controlled by the vehicle, i.e. without the user needing to decelerate the vehicle.).
Han does not specifically teach:
Receiving, by the processor and from the occupant of the vehicle, an answer regarding a necessity for the reduction of the vehicle speed, the answer including at least one of an audio input from the occupant or an input from the occupant to an input device; and
controlling, by the processor, the vehicle speed based on the answer.
Pierfelice teaches:
Receiving, by the processor (Pierfelice, Fig. 2A: 204) and from the occupant of the vehicle, an answer regarding a necessity for the reduction of the vehicle speed, the answer including at least one of an audio input from the occupant or an input from the occupant to an input device (Pierfelice, Fig. 3: 360-370, Paragraph [0045], The system generates an input alert to the user via the communication device and/or the wearable device (see Pierfelice, Paragraphs [0015-0016]). The vehicle controller waits to receive an input from the user to change the current vehicle data and/or interior condition, e.g. increase or decrease a speed of the vehicle. The system utilizes user input logic 226 to provide a change or modification in the vehicle (see Pierfelice, Paragraphs [0028-0029]).); and
controlling, by the processor, the vehicle speed based on the answer (Pierfelice, Paragraph [0045], The vehicle controller waits to receive an input from the user to change the current vehicle data and/or interior condition, e.g. increase or decrease a speed of the vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Han by integrating the teaching of the system in Pierfelice.
The motivation would be to ensure that a user, e.g. a passenger, receives alerts generated by the vehicle (see Pierfelice, Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. 2015/0151756 A1) in view of Pierfelice et al. (U.S. 2021/0331690 A1) in view of Nassouri et al. (U.S. 2020/0377082 A1).
Claim 2, Han in view of Pierfelice teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 1.
Han in view of Pierfelice does not specifically teach:
Further comprising:
a storage configured to store past records of control for the vehicle, wherein
the predetermined condition regards existence or nonexistence of the past records of control for the vehicle, and
the processor determines whether to output the deceleration confirmation signal, based on the existence or the nonexistence of the past records of control stored in the storage.
Nassouri teaches:
A storage configured to store past records of control for the vehicle (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], The vehicle controller 230 stores driver profiles in a memory, wherein the driver profiles includes data regarding how a driver operated a vehicle through a curve. The phrase “past records of control” is interpreted as records specific to a certain curve condition.), wherein
the predetermined condition regards existence or nonexistence of the past records of control for the vehicle (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045]), and
the processor determines whether to output the deceleration confirmation signal, based on the existence or the nonexistence of the past records of control stored in the storage (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], The control levels, of a driver profile, are applied by the processor 220 to the vehicle in response to a similar curve condition met by the vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Han in view of Pierfelice by integrating the teaching of a memory storing driver profiles, as taught by Nassouri.
The motivation would be to further help drivers corner safely based on certain road conditions (see Nassouri, Paragraph [0005]).
Claim 3, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 2, wherein
the processor determines that the past records of control do not exist, when a radius of curvature of the curved road is outside a predetermined range compared to the past records of control (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], In the example, when a similar curve condition is encountered, the driver record indicates that the driver has previously encountered the same or similar curve condition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a current curve to not be stored in the driver profile, i.e. the past records of control do not exist. If the driver profile did not previously record a similar curve, then the determined radius of curvature of the current curve would be outside a predetermined range compared to the radius of curvature of previous curves (see Nassouri, Paragraph [0048]).).
Claim 4, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 2, wherein
the processor outputs the deceleration confirmation signal (Han, Paragraphs [0056-0057]), when the past records of control do not exist (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], In the example, when a similar curve condition is encountered, the driver record indicates that the driver has previously encountered the same or similar curve condition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a current curve to not be stored in the driver profile, i.e. the past records of control do not exist. In the combination of Han in view of Nassouri, the vehicle would be controlled when traversing a curve regardless of whether the driver profile previously traversed the same or similar curve.).
Claim 6, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 1, wherein
the processor (Han, Fig. 1: 116) outputs the deceleration confirmation signal (Han, Paragraph [0062], Based on the controller 116 controlling the speed of the vehicle based on the safe speed and the current vehicle speed, the alarm unit 124 displays that the speed of the vehicle is controlled based on the safe speed.) to a notification device that is communicably connected to the vehicle speed control device (Pierfelice, Fig. 1: 108, 110, Paragraph [0045]).
Claim 7, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 2, wherein
the processor determines that the past records of control exist, when a radius of curvature of the curved road is within a predetermined range compared to the past records of control (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], In the example, when a similar curve condition is encountered, the driver record indicates that the driver has previously encountered the same or similar curve condition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a current curve to be stored in the driver profile, i.e. the past records of control does exist. If the driver profile does previously record a similar curve, then the determined radius of curvature of the current curve would be within a predetermined range compared to the radius of curvature of previous curves (see Nassouri, Paragraph [0048]).).
Claim 8, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 2, wherein
when the past records of control exist (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], In the example, when a similar curve condition is encountered, the driver record indicates that the driver has previously encountered the same or similar curve condition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a current curve to be stored in the driver profile, i.e. the past records of control does exist.), the processor outputs a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed based on the past records of control, without outputting the deceleration confirmation signal (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], The processor 220 may be operative to retrieve saved control levels and apply them in response to ADAS curve response control, wherein ADAS is an automated driver-assistance system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system to be capable of disabling, e.g. temporarily, the output of the alarm circuit 124 in Han. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, i.e. controlling a vehicle through a curve. See MPEP 2144.04. For example, if the vehicle is in ADAS driving, as taught by Nassouri and indicated in Nassouri, no output is generated when the processor 220 operates the ADAS curve response control.).
Claim 13, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 2, wherein
the processor determines the existence or nonexistence of past records of control that are in accordance with a driver of the vehicle (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045]), and, when past records of control by the driver exist, the processor outputs a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed, based on the past records of control (Nassouri, Paragraph [0045], In the example, when a similar curve condition is encountered, the driver record indicates that the driver has previously encountered the same or similar curve condition. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for a current curve to be stored in the driver profile, i.e. the past records of control does exist.).
Claims 5, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (U.S. 2015/0151756 A1) in view of Pierfelice et al. (U.S. 2021/0331690 A1) in view of Nassouri et al. (U.S. 2020/0377082 A1), in view of Glaser et al. (U.S. 2025/0136150 A1).
Claim 5, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 4.
Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri does not specifically teach:
Wherein when the processor receives a deceleration request after outputting the deceleration confirmation signal, the processor outputs a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed, the deceleration request indicating that the reduction of the vehicle speed is necessary.
Glaser teaches:
When the information processor receives a deceleration request after outputting the deceleration confirmation signal (Glaser, Fig. 6, Paragraph [0052], After the system controller 34A displays a prompt 76, i.e. outputting the deceleration confirmation signal, the driver can verify the automated slowdown procedure by selecting “YES”.), the information processor outputs a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed, the deceleration request indicating that the reduction of vehicle speed is necessary (Glaser, Paragraph [0054], In response to the activation of the automated slowdown procedure, the vehicle begins to operate autonomously to slow down and eventually stop, indicative that the reduction of vehicle speed is “necessary”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the combination of Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri by integrating the teaching of an automated slowdown procedure, as taught by Glaser.
The motivation would be to provide measures in situations when a driver of the vehicle is distracted or otherwise no longer able to properly operate the vehicle (see Glaser, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 9, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri in view of Glaser further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 5, wherein
the deceleration control signal includes information regarding deceleration control details for reducing the vehicle speed before the vehicle enters the curved road (Glaser, Paragraph [0054], In the combination of Han in view of Nassouri in view of Glaser, the automated slowdown procedure may be activated prior to entering a curved road (see Han, Paragraph [0049]).).
Claim 10, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri in view of Glaser further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 9,wherein
the deceleration control details include details regarding a deceleration start timing, a deceleration end timing, a vehicle speed after deceleration, and a speed change from start of deceleration to end of deceleration (Han, Paragraphs [0055-0057], The deceleration with regards to entering a curved road include start time, e.g. immediately if within the region defined by the safe speed, end time, e.g. after passing the curved road, vehicle speed after deceleration, i.e. the safe speed, and speed change from start of deceleration to end of deceleration, e.g. the difference between the current speed of the vehicle and the safe speed. Alternatively, the automated slowdown procedure could enable the vehicle to come to a completely stop (see Glaser, Paragraph [0054]).).
Claim 11, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 4, wherein
preset information including a deceleration permission setting for the vehicle is stored in the storage (Han, Paragraph [0062], When the controller 116 controls the speed of the vehicle based on the safe speed and the current vehicle speed, deceleration permission is granted to the controller 116.).
Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri does not specifically teach:
When a deceleration request is not obtained by a predetermined timing after the deceleration confirmation signal is outputted, the processor determines, based on the deceleration permission setting, whether to output a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed, the deceleration request indicating that the reduction of vehicle speed is necessary.
Glaser teaches:
When a deceleration request is not obtained by a predetermined timing after the deceleration confirmation signal is outputted, the processor determines, based on the deceleration permission setting, whether to output a deceleration control signal for performing deceleration control of the vehicle speed (Glaser, Paragraphs [0052-0053], After the prompt 76 is displayed, i.e. the deceleration confirmation signal is outputted, if the system controller 34A does not receive a response from the driver, i.e. a deceleration request is not obtained, within a predetermined time frame, the system controller 34A assumes an acceptance of the request and proceeds with the automated slowdown procedure. The assumption is equivalent to a deceleration permission setting.), the deceleration request indicating that the reduction of vehicle speed is necessary (Glaser, Paragraphs [0052-0053], The operation of the automated slowdown procedure is indicative that the reduction in vehicle speed is necessary.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the combination of Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri by integrating the teaching of an automated slowdown procedure, as taught by Glaser.
The motivation would be to provide measures in situations when a driver of the vehicle is distracted or otherwise no longer able to properly operate the vehicle (see Glaser, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 12, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri in view of Glaser further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 11, wherein
the processor outputs the deceleration control signal when the deceleration permission setting indicates that deceleration is permitted, and does not output the deceleration control signal when the deceleration permission setting indicates that deceleration is not permitted (Glaser, Paragraphs [0052-0053], The deceleration is permitted if the driver replies “YES” or if the driver does not respond within the predetermined time frame. The deceleration is not permitted if the driver replies “NO” or “DISABLE”.).
Claim 14, Han in view of Pierfelice in view of Nassouri in view of Glaser further teaches:
The vehicle speed control device according to claim 5, wherein
after the deceleration control of the vehicle speed is executed during turning by the vehicle on the curved road, the processor outputs a satisfaction level confirmation signal for confirming a level of satisfaction of the occupant regarding the deceleration control (Han, Paragraphs [0062-0064], A warning signal from alarm unit 124 may be generated in response to the vehicle decelerating into a curve towards a safe speed. The warning signal is functionally equivalent to a “satisfaction level confirmation signal” because the claims recite “confirming a level of satisfaction of the occupant regarding the deceleration control” without claiming the functional language of how the occupant can confirm their satisfaction level. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, that if an occupant is unsatisfied with the vehicle deceleration, a warning signal generated from the alarm unit 124 could cause the occupant to confirm their dissatisfaction with the deceleration.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fairfield et al. (U.S. 9,201,421 B1) discloses an assisted perception for autonomous vehicles that generates a natural language question to be confirmed by a passenger in the vehicle, wherein the natural language question includes a confirmation of an existing object, e.g. a stop sign (see Fairfield, Fig. 4E, Col. 18, Lines 61-67 through Col. 19, Lines 1-3).
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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights