DETAILED ACTIONResponse to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 9/17/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-9 canceled and new claims 10-18 have been added.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
The instant claims contain various conditional limitations which include:
Claim 15 and similarly, claims 10 and 18:
generating control signals for canceling the limitation to the bend limit speed and the limitation to the limit speed when the accelerator pedal is actuated beyond a first actuation threshold; and
generating control signals for canceling the limitation to the bend limit speed, but not the limitation to the limit speed, when the accelerator pedal is actuated beyond a second actuation threshold different from the first actuation threshold.
In addition, system claim 10 does not appear to include required claim limitations outside of one or more processors since “configured to” perform an action should a condition occur and “the speed of the vehicle is situationally additionally limited” and “can be” should a condition occur are not requirements.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitation (1) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In addition, limitation (1) recited above recites either computer processing steps carried out by a computing device or method steps that required a first step if a first condition happens and a second step if a second condition happens.
With respect to conditional limitations in such cases, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Accordingly, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to limitation (1). See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require either “the lane change control unit cancels the automatic lane change” or “executes the automatic lane change without cancellation” since the conditional limitations are not actually required to occur (i.e., “in a case of predicting that the user's own vehicle after having made the automatic lane change will be adjacent to another vehicle that exists inside of the third lane or on the third lane dividing line” rather than that the prediction actually occurs)
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 10-11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180237009 to Chutorash et al. (Chut) in view of US 20200180617 to Tezuka et al. (Tez)
With respect to claims 10, 14-15 and 17-18, Chut discloses a system for limiting a speed of a vehicle, comprising:
(¶ 3 Speed limiting systems have been popular in recent years on passenger cars and trucks. Sometimes the sued limiting system forms a portion of an adaptive cruise control systems ("ACCS") of the vehicle)
one or more processors configured to
limit an effect of actuation of an accelerator pedal of the vehicle such that the vehicle does not exceed a limit speed set by a driver or determined from at least one of map information or environmental sensor information;
(¶¶ 3 enable the user to set a maximum vehicle speed, and the speed limiting system will not allow the vehicle to be driven faster than the preset maximum speed unless some "override" signal, for example a hard press on an accelerator pedal, is provided by the vehicle operator; 14 processor 14 may then determine, using map information, what the posted speed limit is for the road that the vehicle 12 is travelling on)
wherein the limitation to the limit speed can be overridden by actuating the accelerator pedal beyond a first actuation threshold; and
(¶ 3 systems enable the user to set a maximum vehicle speed, and the speed limiting system will not allow the vehicle to be driven faster than the preset maximum speed unless some "override" signal, for example a hard press on an accelerator pedal, is provided by the vehicle operator, "override" signal, for example a hard press on an accelerator pedal, is provided by the vehicle operator)
Chut fails to explicitly a bend speed limit being overridden by actuation of a pedal at a second actuation threshold
Tez, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the speed of the vehicle is situationally additionally limited to a bend limit speed which is derived from map information and is lower than the limit speed (i.e., ¶ 1 “disclosure relates to a vehicle control device configured to control a vehicle (running state of the vehicle) in such a manner that a vehicle speed does not exceed a target vehicle speed when the vehicle travels/runs in a curve section”) wherein bend speed limit is overridden by actuation of a pedal at a second actuation threshold (¶¶ 36, 106, acceleration override; 185, 188, 328, 331, 332, FIG. 6 and corresponding description)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the system of Chut to incorporate the teachings of Tez such that the speed of the vehicle is limited on the basis of bend limit speed wherein the bend speed limit is overridden by actuation of a pedal at a second unique actuation threshold because driver uneasiness requires variant control methods in curve and non-curve sections (Tez, ¶¶ 5-7) and in order to provide improved driver comfort (Tez, ¶ 7, 17, 36).
With respect to claim 11 Chut in view of Tez disclose the first actuation threshold and the second actuation threshold are set in such a manner that less intensive accelerator pedal actuation suffices to override the limitation to the bend limit speed in comparison with accelerator pedal actuation that is needed to override the limitation to the limit speed.
(Tez, ¶¶ 21-26, 29-31, 215-216)
With respect to claim 16 Chut in view of Tez disclose a bend limit speed is determined on the basis of a bend curvature determined from at least one of a digital map or on the basis of a bend radius determined from a digital map.
(Tez, ¶¶ 328-332 navigation system 18 has stored map data (road data or navigation information) including a location of the curve section Cv on the earth's surface, a curvature of the curve section Cv, and the like . . . CPU obtains the curvature of the traveling road at the future position the predetermined distance away from the present position of the vehicle VA in the travel direction of the vehicle VA as the future curvature FC, through referring to the map data (the navigation information) of the navigation system 18)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180237009 to Chutorash et al. (Chut) in view of US 20200180617 to Tezuka et al. (Tez) in view of US 20170291604 to Mukkala et al. (Muk)
With respect to claim 12 Chut in view of Tez disclose at least one of the first actuation threshold or the second actuation threshold corresponds to an accelerator pedal depression amount (Tez, 22, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 81-82 acceleration pedal operation amount AP I s0 when the driver does not operate the acceleration pedal; 106)
Chut in view of Tez fail to explicitly disclose the operation amount corresponds to an angle. However, the accelerator pedal operation amount being an angle was well known at the time of effective filing as a measure of pedal operation given the angled pedal setup used in most vehicles. Muk, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly discloses this well known feature.
(Muk in the vehicle accelerator override arts, abstract “system for overriding a vehicle speed limit setting via accelerator pedal override . . . accelerator pedal; ¶¶ 1-4 accelerator pedal override systems; 96 pedal position may be considered to be closed at 0% and fully open at 100% pedal travel or angle. Pedal position or angle may be detected by a pedal position sensor, which may transmit the detected signal to a processor in the vehicle, such as by a vehicle speed limit override module)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the threshold related to the pedal operation amount to correspond to a pedal angle, as taught by Muk, in the system of Chut in view of Tez since using a pedal angle as a pedal operation amount indictor was well known in the art at the time of invention. It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used pedal angle as taught in Muk as the pedal operation amount in in Chut in view of Tez and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since the majority of pedals operate in this manner and would be well known to any designer in the field.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180237009 to Chutorash et al. (Chut) in view of US 20200180617 to Tezuka et al. (Tez) in view of US 20100292888 to Taguchi et al. (Tag)
With respect to claim 13 Chut in view of Tez disclose at least one of the first actuation threshold or the second actuation threshold corresponds to an accelerator pedal depression amount (Tez, 22, Fig. 1; ¶¶ 81-82 acceleration pedal operation amount AP I s0 when the driver does not operate the acceleration pedal; 106)
Chut in view of Tez fail to explicitly disclose the operation amount corresponds to an a temporal change in an accelerator pedal angle. However, the accelerator pedal operation amount being a temporal change in an accelerator pedal angle was well known at the time of effective filing as a measure of pedal operation given the angled pedal setup used in most vehicles.
Tag, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly discloses this well known feature.
(12, FIG. 1 accelerator pedal sensor; FIG. 3 “accelerator pedal angle”; ¶¶ 38-45, 48-52 accelerator pedal angular speed)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date for the pedal operation amount to correspond to a temporal change in an accelerator pedal angle, as taught by Tag, in the system of Chut in view of Tez since using a pedal angle as a pedal operation amount indictor was well known in the art at the time of invention. It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have used a temporal change in an accelerator pedal angle as taught in Tag as the pedal operation amount in in Chut in view of Tez and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since the majority of pedals operate in this manner and would be well known to any designer in the field. In addition, using a temporal change in an accelerator pedal angle as a pedal operation amount provides a more detailed basis for a more nuanced driver intervention to improve drivability by performing an assist with less discomfort caused to the drive (Tag, ¶¶ 7, 9, 44-45 when the accelerator pedal operation are steady the driver is relatively sensitive to changes in the vehicle velocity or changes in the steering angle, and therefore the intervention by the driving assist performed by the ECU 10 is reduced . . . minimization of the discomfort caused by the intervention by the vehicle driving assist and induction to an ideal state of driving can be achieved . . . the induction and the intervention are performed according to the degrees of change in the amounts of operation of the accelerator pedal, the brake pedal and the steering wheel, and in the speeds of change in the operation thereof . . . changes moment by moment is taken into account to achieve both minimization of the discomfort caused by intervention by the vehicle driving assist, and minimization of the control error)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights