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 .
Claims 1 thru 20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 2 steps S202 and S206, the specification does not recite any directions for a “NO” option to these steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3 steps S302 and S304, the specification does not recite any directions for a “NO” option to these steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4 steps S402 and S404, the specification does not recite any directions for a “NO” option to these steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 5 step S504, the specification does not recite any directions for a “NO” option to this steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 5, step S504 recites “Deceleration Rate of Vehicle </= Deceleration Rate of Following Vehicle” and if YES to block the speed control in step S505. In a situation where the deceleration rate of a lead vehicle is less than the deceleration rate of a following vehicle, it is not likely for a collision to occur. The following vehicle is slowing down at a faster rate than the lead vehicle, this would create a greater separation between the lead and following vehicles. The examiner assumes S504 should be “Deceleration Rate of Vehicle >/= Deceleration Rate of Following Vehicle” or “Deceleration Rate of Following Vehicle </= Deceleration Rate of Vehicle”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 18 lines 8 thru 12 recite, “The following vehicle collision avoidance module 120 can detect the situation where the collision with the following vehicle is likely to occur due to the speed limit or the acceleration limit if the deceleration rate of the following vehicle is greater than the deceleration rate of the vehicle 1.” In a situation where the deceleration rate of a following vehicle is greater than the deceleration rate of a lead vehicle, it is not likely for a collision to occur. The following vehicle is slowing down at a faster rate than the lead vehicle, this would create a greater separation between the lead and following vehicles. The examiner assumes it should be “The following vehicle collision avoidance module 120 can detect the situation where the collision with the following vehicle is likely to occur due to the speed limit or the acceleration limit if the deceleration rate of the following vehicle is less than the deceleration rate of the vehicle 1.”, or “The following vehicle collision avoidance module 120 can detect the situation where the collision with the following vehicle is likely to occur due to the speed limit or the acceleration limit if the deceleration rate of the vehicle 1 is greater than the deceleration rate of the following vehicle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 23 line 23 thru page 24 line 3 recite, “The method can include transmitting the command to the vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle to block the current speed control from being performed (S505) if the deceleration rate of the following vehicle is determined to be greater than the deceleration rate of the vehicle.”. In a situation where the deceleration rate of a following vehicle is greater than the deceleration rate of a lead vehicle, it is not likely for a collision to occur. The following vehicle is slowing down at a faster rate than the lead vehicle, this would create a greater separation between the lead and following vehicles. The examiner assumes it should be “The method can include transmitting the command to the vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle to block the current speed control from being performed (S505) if the deceleration rate of the following vehicle is determined to be less than the deceleration rate of the vehicle.”, or “The method can include transmitting the command to the vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle to block the current speed control from being performed (S505) if the deceleration rate of the vehicle is determined to be greater than the deceleration rate of the following vehicle.” The explanation of steps S504 and S505 should match with Figure 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving from a navigation device in claims 1, 11 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The navigation device is interpreted as a global positioning system (GPS) or the like (spec pages 12 lines 9 thru 16).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 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 5 and 15 each recite,
“comparing the deceleration rate of the vehicle with the deceleration rate of the following vehicle; and
transmitting, based on the deceleration rate of the following vehicle being greater than the deceleration rate of the vehicle, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed” (last two limitations in each claim).
In a situation where the deceleration rate of a following vehicle is greater than the deceleration rate of a lead vehicle, it is not likely for a collision to occur (speed control would not need to be blocked). The following vehicle is slowing down at a faster rate than the lead vehicle, this would create a greater separation between the lead and following vehicles. The examiner assumes the transmitting limitation should be “transmitting, based on the deceleration rate of the following vehicle being less than the deceleration rate of the vehicle, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed”, or “transmitting, based on the deceleration rate of the vehicle being greater than the deceleration rate of the following vehicle, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed” for continued examination.
Claim 12 recites “a memory” in line 2, while claim 11 recites “at least one memory” in line 2. It is unclear if the memory of claim 12 is included in the at least one memory of claim 11. The examiner assumes it is the same memory for continued examination.
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, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 18 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0354557 A1 in view of Sadamura et al Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0326800 A1.
Regarding claim 1 Chun teaches the claimed method for driving assistance performed by a computing device implemented in a vehicle and implemented using a processor and a communication interface, operations for performing driver assistance (Figures 4 and 6), “The controller 140 includes a CAN transceiver 143, a memory 142, and a processor 141.” (P[0062] and Figure 2), and “The controller 140 may be electrically connected to the front camera 110 and the front radar 120. In addition, the controller 140 may be connected to the driving system 10, the braking system 30, and the steering system 40 through a vehicle communication network NT.” (P[0060] and Figure 1), the method comprising:
the claimed receiving first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone and second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone from a navigation device, “In the above, the navigation device of the vehicle 1 is not mentioned. Unlike the above description, when the vehicle 1 includes a navigation device, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may acquire information about an enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle 1 from the navigation device. If the distance from the navigation device to the enforcement location is less than the reference distance, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may inform the driver of a speed limit that is gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location.” P[0113], the enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle equates to the claimed second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone, and the distance to the enforcement location equates to the claimed first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone;
the claimed determining whether a value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1020).” (P[0084] and Figure 4), and “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether an enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1120).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), the enforcement notice sign equates to the claimed vehicle enters the specified zone;
the claimed receiving third data regarding a current speed of the vehicle and fourth data regarding an accelerator pedal position of the vehicle based on the value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (Yes in 1020), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1030).” (P[0091] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 has been detected (Yes in 1120), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1130).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), and “The engine control module 11 may be electrically connected to the engine 12, and may output a control signal for controlling the engine 12 in response to the driver's willingness to accelerate through the accelerator pedal or a request from the driver assistance apparatus 100.” P[0031];
the claimed comparing the current speed from the third data with the speed limit from the second data, “Once the contents of the enforcement notice sign 200 are identified, the controller 140 may determine whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200. If information about the driving speed of the vehicle 1 may be received from the driving system 10 or the braking system 30, the controller 140 may compare the driving speed of the vehicle 1 with the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200.” P[0094];
the claimed based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit, transmitting to a vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle, a command to cause the vehicle to decelerate the current speed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “The driver assistance apparatus 100 may include a front camera 110, a front radar 120, and a controller 140.” (P[0051] and Figure 2), and “The controller 140 may generate a driving signal, a braking signal, and a steering signal based on a driver's input and relative location and relative speed of the front objects. For example, the controller 140 may transmit a driving signal for driving the vehicle 1 at a speed set by the driver to the driving system 10.” P[0070]; and
the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit, the controller 140 may determine whether the difference between the driving speed of the vehicle 1 and the speed limit is greater than the reference difference. If the determined difference is not greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at the speed limit.” P[0127], and “If the determined difference is greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at a gradually decelerated driving speed according to the remaining distance to the enforcement location. Specifically, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 to drive at a decreased driving speed as the distance to the enforcement location decreases. Thereby, the vehicle 10 may gradually or stepwise decrease the driving speed until it reaches the enforcement location.” P[0128], the control of the driving system equates to the claimed override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control.
Chun does not explicitly teach the claimed accelerator pedal position, and the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data. Chun does control the vehicle to not exceed the speed limit, and when the vehicle accelerates to the speed limit, there would then be control to prevent the vehicle from accelerating above the speed limit.
Sadamura et al teach,
the claimed accelerator pedal position, “The operation information processor 140 acquires second information about an acceleration operation of the driver of the vehicle M. The second information is, for example, information indicating an accelerator pedal opening degree output from the AP pedal sensor 88.” (P[0061] and Figure 5), and
the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data, “The assistance control may be performed on the condition that the speed of the vehicle M is less than or equal to a predetermined speed.” P[0074], and “the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not assistance control is being performed (step S200). When assistance control is being performed, the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not the accelerator pedal 84 has been operated (step S202).” (P[0116] and Figure 11).
Additionally, Sadamura et al teach the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When the cumulative value of the amount of change in the accelerator pedal opening degree has reached the threshold value in step S208, the driving assistance device 100 establishes an accelerator override (step S212). Thereby, the process of the flowchart of [FIG. 11] described above is stopped and the assistance control is stopped. Subsequently, the driving assistance device 100 accelerates the vehicle M while suppressing acceleration according to the accelerator pedal opening degree (step S214).” (P[0118] and Figure 11).
The situation of assistance control performed (when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined speed) and the accelerator pedal is operated of Sadamura et al would be incorporated into Chun as the control leading up to the vehicle exceeding the speed limit (entering the enforcement zone below the speed limit and then accelerating to the point of needing control to reduce speed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operations for performing driver assistance of Chun with the assistance control performed and the accelerator pedal operated for overriding acceleration of Sadamura et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, cause the vehicle to perform acceleration corresponding to the driver's intention (Sadamura et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 2 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: Chun teaches,
the claimed receiving a value for setting a deceleration mode for vehicle deceleration from memory, “The memory 142 may store programs and data for controlling the operation of the driver assistance apparatus 100. In addition, the memory 142 may provide programs and data to the processor 141 and store temporary data generated during an operation of the processor 141.” P[0064], and “the driver assistance apparatus 100 may identify the enforcement notice sign 200 based on the image data in front of the vehicle 1, and may provide the driver with a speed limit that is gradually decreased based on the speed limit indicated on the enforcement notice sign 200 and the distance to the enforcement location. Thereby, the vehicle 1 is prevented from overspeeding in the speed enforcement section, and an accident due to the rapid deceleration of the vehicle 1 may be prevented.” P[0112]; and
the claimed transmitting the command to the vehicle integration controller to decelerate the current speed to the first acceleration one a first time elapses after the vehicle enters the specified zone based on setting the deceleration mode to a first deceleration mode, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit, the controller 140 may determine whether the difference between the driving speed of the vehicle 1 and the speed limit is greater than the reference difference. If the determined difference is not greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at the speed limit.” P[0127], and “If it is determined that the vehicle 1 has passed the enforcement location (Yes in 1160), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the passing of the enforcement location and recovers the driving speed of the vehicle 1 (1170).” P[0140].
Regarding claim 8 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: Chun teaches,
the claimed displaying a user interface indicating deactivation of a function related to the driving assistance on a vehicle display, “The display device 51 may display an image for providing convenience and information to the driver. The display device 51 may display information requested from the driver assistance apparatus 100. For example, the display device 61 may display information on a speed limit of a road in response to a request from the driver assistance apparatus 100.” (P[0043] and Figure 1), “The controller 140 may transmit a control signal to the display module 51 to display an image indicating that the vehicle 1 has passed the enforcement location.” P[0111], and “If it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is not greater than the speed limit (No in 1130), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the speed limit (1135).” (P[0118] and Figure 6) and the gradual speed control is not performed (Figure 6 steps 1145 and 1150) (claimed deactivation of a function related to the driving assistance on a vehicle display); and
the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration control to block current speed control from being performed based on a request for the deactivation received through the user interface, “If it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is not greater than the speed limit (No in 1130), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the speed limit (1135).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), speed control is not performed because the vehicle is not exceeding the speed limit.
Regarding claim 9 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 (see above), further comprising: Chun does not teach the claimed transmitting the current speed to a remote server based on the first data indicating that the vehicle enters the specified zone. Chun does teach the claimed first data indicating that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1020).” P[0084]. Sadamura et al teach, “The navigation device 50 may transmit a current position and a destination to a navigation server via the communication device 20 and acquire a route equivalent to the route on the map from the navigation server.” P[0048]. The navigation route of Sadamura et al would indicate the route and include various speed limit zones and equate to the enforcement areas of Chun. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operations for performing driver assistance for enforcement notice zones of Chun with the navigation routing sent to a navigation server of Sadamura et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, cause the vehicle to perform acceleration corresponding to the driver's intention (Sadamura et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 11 Chun teaches the claimed device for driving assistance, driver assistance apparatus 100 (Figure 2), comprising:
the claimed at least one memory storing instructions, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 may include a front camera 110, a front radar 120, and a controller 140.” P[0051], “The controller 140 includes a CAN transceiver 143, a memory 142, and a processor 141.” (P[0062] and Figure 2), and “The memory 142 may store programs and data for controlling the operation of the driver assistance apparatus 100.” P[0064]; and
the claimed at least one processor to execute the instruction to perform operations, “The processor 141 may process image data of the front camera 110 and/or detection data of the front radar 120 according to programs and data provided from the memory 142. In addition, the processor 141 may generate control signals for controlling the driving system 10, the braking system 30, and the steering system 40 according to programs and data stored in the memory 142.” (P[0066] and Figure 2), the operations comprising:
the claimed receiving first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone and second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone from a navigation device, “In the above, the navigation device of the vehicle 1 is not mentioned. Unlike the above description, when the vehicle 1 includes a navigation device, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may acquire information about an enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle 1 from the navigation device. If the distance from the navigation device to the enforcement location is less than the reference distance, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may inform the driver of a speed limit that is gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location.” P[0113], the enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle equates to the claimed second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone, and the distance to the enforcement location equates to the claimed first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone;
the claimed determining whether a value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1020).” (P[0084] and Figure 4), and “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether an enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1120).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), the enforcement notice sign equates to the claimed vehicle enters the specified zone;
the claimed receiving third data regarding a current speed of the vehicle and fourth data regarding an accelerator pedal position of the vehicle based on the value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (Yes in 1020), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1030).” (P[0091] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 has been detected (Yes in 1120), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1130).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), and “The engine control module 11 may be electrically connected to the engine 12, and may output a control signal for controlling the engine 12 in response to the driver's willingness to accelerate through the accelerator pedal or a request from the driver assistance apparatus 100.” P[0031];
the claimed comparing the current speed from the third data with the speed limit from the second data, “Once the contents of the enforcement notice sign 200 are identified, the controller 140 may determine whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200. If information about the driving speed of the vehicle 1 may be received from the driving system 10 or the braking system 30, the controller 140 may compare the driving speed of the vehicle 1 with the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200.” P[0094];
the claimed based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit, transmitting to a vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle, a command to cause the vehicle to decelerate the current speed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “The driver assistance apparatus 100 may include a front camera 110, a front radar 120, and a controller 140.” (P[0051] and Figure 2), and “The controller 140 may generate a driving signal, a braking signal, and a steering signal based on a driver's input and relative location and relative speed of the front objects. For example, the controller 140 may transmit a driving signal for driving the vehicle 1 at a speed set by the driver to the driving system 10.” P[0070]; and
the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit, the controller 140 may determine whether the difference between the driving speed of the vehicle 1 and the speed limit is greater than the reference difference. If the determined difference is not greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at the speed limit.” P[0127], and “If the determined difference is greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at a gradually decelerated driving speed according to the remaining distance to the enforcement location. Specifically, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 to drive at a decreased driving speed as the distance to the enforcement location decreases. Thereby, the vehicle 10 may gradually or stepwise decrease the driving speed until it reaches the enforcement location.” P[0128], the control of the driving system equates to the claimed override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control.
Chun does not explicitly teach the claimed accelerator pedal position, and the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data. Chun does control the vehicle to not exceed the speed limit, and when the vehicle accelerates to the speed limit, there would then be control to prevent the vehicle from accelerating above the speed limit.
Sadamura et al teach,
the claimed accelerator pedal position, “The operation information processor 140 acquires second information about an acceleration operation of the driver of the vehicle M. The second information is, for example, information indicating an accelerator pedal opening degree output from the AP pedal sensor 88.” (P[0061] and Figure 5), and
the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data, “The assistance control may be performed on the condition that the speed of the vehicle M is less than or equal to a predetermined speed.” P[0074], and “the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not assistance control is being performed (step S200). When assistance control is being performed, the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not the accelerator pedal 84 has been operated (step S202).” (P[0116] and Figure 11).
Additionally, Sadamura et al teach the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When the cumulative value of the amount of change in the accelerator pedal opening degree has reached the threshold value in step S208, the driving assistance device 100 establishes an accelerator override (step S212). Thereby, the process of the flowchart of [FIG. 11] described above is stopped and the assistance control is stopped. Subsequently, the driving assistance device 100 accelerates the vehicle M while suppressing acceleration according to the accelerator pedal opening degree (step S214).” (P[0118] and Figure 11).
The situation of assistance control performed (when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined speed) and the accelerator pedal is operated of Sadamura et al would be incorporated into Chun as the control leading up to the vehicle exceeding the speed limit (entering the enforcement zone below the speed limit and then accelerating to the point of needing control to reduce speed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operations for performing driver assistance of Chun with the assistance control performed and the accelerator pedal operated for overriding acceleration of Sadamura et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, cause the vehicle to perform acceleration corresponding to the driver's intention (Sadamura et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 12 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed device of claim 11 (see above), further comprising: Chun teaches,
the claimed receiving a value for setting a deceleration mode for vehicle deceleration from memory, “The memory 142 may store programs and data for controlling the operation of the driver assistance apparatus 100. In addition, the memory 142 may provide programs and data to the processor 141 and store temporary data generated during an operation of the processor 141.” P[0064], and “the driver assistance apparatus 100 may identify the enforcement notice sign 200 based on the image data in front of the vehicle 1, and may provide the driver with a speed limit that is gradually decreased based on the speed limit indicated on the enforcement notice sign 200 and the distance to the enforcement location. Thereby, the vehicle 1 is prevented from overspeeding in the speed enforcement section, and an accident due to the rapid deceleration of the vehicle 1 may be prevented.” P[0112]; and
the claimed transmitting the command to the vehicle integration controller to decelerate the current speed to the first acceleration one a first time elapses after the vehicle enters the specified zone based on setting the deceleration mode to a first deceleration mode, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit, the controller 140 may determine whether the difference between the driving speed of the vehicle 1 and the speed limit is greater than the reference difference. If the determined difference is not greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at the speed limit.” P[0127], and “If it is determined that the vehicle 1 has passed the enforcement location (Yes in 1160), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the passing of the enforcement location and recovers the driving speed of the vehicle 1 (1170).” P[0140].
Regarding claim 18 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed device of claim 11 (see above), further comprising: Chun teaches,
the claimed displaying a user interface indicating deactivation of a function related to the driving assistance on a vehicle display, “The display device 51 may display an image for providing convenience and information to the driver. The display device 51 may display information requested from the driver assistance apparatus 100. For example, the display device 61 may display information on a speed limit of a road in response to a request from the driver assistance apparatus 100.” (P[0043] and Figure 1), “The controller 140 may transmit a control signal to the display module 51 to display an image indicating that the vehicle 1 has passed the enforcement location.” P[0111], and “If it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is not greater than the speed limit (No in 1130), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the speed limit (1135).” (P[0118] and Figure 6) and the gradual speed control is not performed (Figure 6 steps 1145 and 1150) (claimed deactivation of a function related to the driving assistance on a vehicle display); and
the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration control to block current speed control from being performed based on a request for the deactivation received through the user interface, “If it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is not greater than the speed limit (No in 1130), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the driver of the speed limit (1135).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), speed control is not performed because the vehicle is not exceeding the speed limit.
Regarding claim 19 Chun and Sadamura et al teach the claimed device of claim 11 (see above), further comprising: Chun does not teach the claimed transmitting the current speed to a remote server based on the first data indicating that the vehicle enters the specified zone. Chun does teach the claimed first data indicating that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1020).” P[0084]. Sadamura et al teach, “The navigation device 50 may transmit a current position and a destination to a navigation server via the communication device 20 and acquire a route equivalent to the route on the map from the navigation server.” P[0048]. The navigation route of Sadamura et al would indicate the route and include various speed limit zones and equate to the enforcement areas of Chun. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operations for performing driver assistance for enforcement notice zones of Chun with the navigation routing sent to a navigation server of Sadamura et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, cause the vehicle to perform acceleration corresponding to the driver's intention (Sadamura et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 20 Chun teaches the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium storing an instruction causing a computing device implemented in a vehicle to execute operations, “embodiments can thus be implemented through computer readable code/instructions in/on a medium, e.g., a computer readable medium, to control at least one processing element to implement any above described exemplary embodiment. The medium can correspond to any medium/media permitting the storing and/or transmission of the computer readable code.” P[0146], the operations comprising:
the claimed receiving first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone and second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone from a navigation device, “In the above, the navigation device of the vehicle 1 is not mentioned. Unlike the above description, when the vehicle 1 includes a navigation device, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may acquire information about an enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle 1 from the navigation device. If the distance from the navigation device to the enforcement location is less than the reference distance, the driver assistance apparatus 100 may inform the driver of a speed limit that is gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location.” P[0113], the enforcement location that regulates speeding of the vehicle equates to the claimed second data regarding a speed limit within the specified zone, and the distance to the enforcement location equates to the claimed first data regarding whether the vehicle enters a specified zone;
the claimed determining whether a value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1020).” (P[0084] and Figure 4), and “The driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether an enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (1120).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), the enforcement notice sign equates to the claimed vehicle enters the specified zone;
the claimed receiving third data regarding a current speed of the vehicle and fourth data regarding an accelerator pedal position of the vehicle based on the value of the first data indicates that the vehicle enters the specified zone, “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 is detected (Yes in 1020), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1030).” (P[0091] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the enforcement notice sign 200 has been detected (Yes in 1120), the driver assistance apparatus 100 determines whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (1130).” (P[0118] and Figure 6), and “The engine control module 11 may be electrically connected to the engine 12, and may output a control signal for controlling the engine 12 in response to the driver's willingness to accelerate through the accelerator pedal or a request from the driver assistance apparatus 100.” P[0031];
the claimed comparing the current speed from the third data with the speed limit from the second data, “Once the contents of the enforcement notice sign 200 are identified, the controller 140 may determine whether the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200. If information about the driving speed of the vehicle 1 may be received from the driving system 10 or the braking system 30, the controller 140 may compare the driving speed of the vehicle 1 with the identified speed limit of the enforcement notice sign 200.” P[0094];
the claimed based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit, transmitting to a vehicle integration controller installed in the vehicle, a command to cause the vehicle to decelerate the current speed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “The driver assistance apparatus 100 may include a front camera 110, a front radar 120, and a controller 140.” (P[0051] and Figure 2), and “The controller 140 may generate a driving signal, a braking signal, and a steering signal based on a driver's input and relative location and relative speed of the front objects. For example, the controller 140 may transmit a driving signal for driving the vehicle 1 at a speed set by the driver to the driving system 10.” P[0070]; and
the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit (Yes in 1030), the driver assistance apparatus 100 notifies the speed limit gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location (1040).” (P[0097] and Figure 4), “When it is determined that the cruise control is activated (Yes in 1140), the driver assistance apparatus 100 controls the vehicle 1 to drive at a speed gradually decreased according to the distance to the enforcement location. (1150).” (P[0126] and Figure 6), “When it is determined that the driving speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than the speed limit, the controller 140 may determine whether the difference between the driving speed of the vehicle 1 and the speed limit is greater than the reference difference. If the determined difference is not greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at the speed limit.” P[0127], and “If the determined difference is greater than the reference difference, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 so that the vehicle 1 drives at a gradually decelerated driving speed according to the remaining distance to the enforcement location. Specifically, the controller 140 may transmit an acceleration signal or a deceleration signal to the driving system 10 or the braking system 30 to drive at a decreased driving speed as the distance to the enforcement location decreases. Thereby, the vehicle 10 may gradually or stepwise decrease the driving speed until it reaches the enforcement location.” P[0128], the control of the driving system equates to the claimed override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control.
Chun does not explicitly teach the claimed accelerator pedal position, and the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data. Chun does control the vehicle to not exceed the speed limit, and when the vehicle accelerates to the speed limit, there would then be control to prevent the vehicle from accelerating above the speed limit.
Sadamura et al teach,
the claimed accelerator pedal position, “The operation information processor 140 acquires second information about an acceleration operation of the driver of the vehicle M. The second information is, for example, information indicating an accelerator pedal opening degree output from the AP pedal sensor 88.” (P[0061] and Figure 5), and
the claimed based on the current speed being at or below the speed limit, detecting whether an accelerator pedal is pressed based on the accelerator pedal position from the fourth data, “The assistance control may be performed on the condition that the speed of the vehicle M is less than or equal to a predetermined speed.” P[0074], and “the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not assistance control is being performed (step S200). When assistance control is being performed, the driving assistance device 100 determines whether or not the accelerator pedal 84 has been operated (step S202).” (P[0116] and Figure 11).
Additionally, Sadamura et al teach the claimed transmitting a command to the vehicle integration controller to override the vehicle acceleration by the accelerator pedal control based on the current speed exceeding the speed limit and the accelerator pedal being pressed, “When the cumulative value of the amount of change in the accelerator pedal opening degree has reached the threshold value in step S208, the driving assistance device 100 establishes an accelerator override (step S212). Thereby, the process of the flowchart of [FIG. 11] described above is stopped and the assistance control is stopped. Subsequently, the driving assistance device 100 accelerates the vehicle M while suppressing acceleration according to the accelerator pedal opening degree (step S214).” (P[0118] and Figure 11).
The situation of assistance control performed (when the vehicle speed is below a predetermined speed) and the accelerator pedal is operated of Sadamura et al would be incorporated into Chun as the control leading up to the vehicle exceeding the speed limit (entering the enforcement zone below the speed limit and then accelerating to the point of needing control to reduce speed). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the operations for performing driver assistance of Chun with the assistance control performed and the accelerator pedal operated for overriding acceleration of Sadamura et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, cause the vehicle to perform acceleration corresponding to the driver's intention (Sadamura et al P[0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 12 thru 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record are based on the combined limitations of the independent and dependent claims. The groups of claims include: Claims 1 thru 3, claims 1 and 5, claims 1 and 6, claims 1 and 7, claims 1 and 10, claims 11 thru 13, claims 11 and 15, claims 11 and 16, and claims 11 and 17. The limitations of the dependent claims when combined with the respective independent claim provide different allowable subject matter combinations over the closest prior art of Chun Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0354557 A1 when taken individually or in combination with other prior art. If and when claim amendments are submitted, the examiner will provide a more detailed explanation of the indicated allowable subject matter directed to: “a second deceleration mode that is different from the first deceleration mode, the command to the vehicle integration controller to decelerate the current speed to second acceleration that is different from the first acceleration once the first time elapses after the vehicle enters the specified zone” (claims 3 and 13); “comparing the deceleration rate of the vehicle with the deceleration rate of the following vehicle; and transmitting, based on the deceleration rate of the following vehicle being less than the deceleration rate of the vehicle, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed” (interpreted claims 5 and 15 – see above 112b rejection); “a current speed of a following vehicle; and transmitting, based on the current speed of the following vehicle being greater than a predetermined reference speed, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed” (claims 6 and 16); “a current speed of a following vehicle; and transmitting, based on the current speed of the following vehicle being greater than the current speed of the vehicle, a command to the vehicle integration controller to block current speed control from being performed” (claims 7 and 17); and “transmitting, based on the value of the first data indicating that the vehicle enters the specified zone, a command to a black box disposed at the vehicle to instruct the black box to start video recording” (claim 10).
Related Art
The examiner points to Rothschild PGPub 2007/0067086 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Rothschild is directed to a method for controlling speed of a vehicle (Figure 3) that includes determine the device's specific location (step 302), retrieve from storage module 110 a geographic map based on the determined location (step 304), determine a speed of the vehicle (step 306), determine the speed limit for the particular route traveled (step 310), compare the determined speed limit to the current rate of speed of the vehicle, and will generate an alert if the user is moving the vehicle in excess of the posted limit. The processing module 120 will determine if the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the current speed limit (step 314), alert the user that they are exceeding the current speed limit (step 316), and if the vehicle is exceeding the current speed limit, the device 100 will control the vehicle's speed to maintain the current speed limit (step 318).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights