Jump to content

Patent Application 17509339 - TRANSITIONING OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL FROM AN - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 17509339 - TRANSITIONING OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL FROM AN

Title: TRANSITIONING OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL FROM AN ADAS OR AD SYSTEM TO A DRIVER

Application Information

  • Invention Title: TRANSITIONING OF VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL FROM AN ADAS OR AD SYSTEM TO A DRIVER
  • Application Number: 17509339
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2021-10-25T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2021-10-25T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 701
  • National Sub-Class: 093000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 95604
  • Art Unit: 3668
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text


    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 .

Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 5/9/2025. This action is made FINAL. 
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.

Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C §103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued the following points. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons outlined below each point. 

“Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, inter alia:
'following transitioning of speed control from the one of the ADAS and AD system to the vehicle driver, [presenting/present] on a vehicle display a graphical representation indicative of each of: the system-initiated deceleration parameter, the driver-initiated deceleration parameter, and a proportional representation of a discrepancy between the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter." (Emphasis added)…

The Office Action relies on Ono (although there appears to be a typographical error that refers to McNew) relative to these features. Ono does not cure the deficiencies of Stark. Ono describes pointers in a graphical display used in a situation in which intervention of the decelerating manipulation unit is, or is not, recognized by the intervening driving manipulation recognition unit during the autonomous driving control. (Ono:   1[0111], [0112]; See also, Ono at[0013]). 

Hence, Ono does not describe presenting graphical representation indicative of a discrepancy following transitioning of speed control from the one of the ADAS and AD system to the vehicle driver, as Ono's pointers are displayed during the autonomous driving control, i.e., not while under vehicle driver control”, (Remarks, pages 9-10)

Regarding point a, the examiner acknowledges the typographical error in the rejection header and apologizes for any confusion. The rejection of the claims under Stark and Ono were fully cited and the motivation to combine the two prior arts was provided. 
Regarding applicant’s arguments, Ono teaches displaying the difference between the autonomous deceleration and the driver’s deceleration when a driver intervenes in the autonomous driving control, i.e. takes control of the vehicle, which amounts to a transition of control from the autonomous system to the driver. Ono, see at least FIG. 5; FIG. 6; ¶[0010]; ¶[0013], ¶[0110]-¶[0112]. ¶[0010] specifically describes the driver’s deceleration as the controlling force when the driver intervenes. Therefore the display is shown after a transition from the autonomous vehicle to the driver. Further, displaying the points at any other time does not teach away from the claimed invention, as the claims use the term “comprising”, which allows for additional features to the claimed invention. In this instance, showing the display more often than the claimed invention requires does not make the claimed invention patentably distinct. 

“Furthermore, Ono does not depict graphical representation of each of: the system-initiated deceleration parameter, the driver-initiated deceleration parameter, and a proportional representation of a discrepancy therebetween. For example, Applicant's FIG. 2 depicts a portion representative of the driver-initiated value (41, 41', 41"), a portion representative of the system- initiated value (42, 42', 42"), and a portion representing the discrepancy (43, 43', 43"). (See also, Applicant's Specification:   [0034]). By displaying all three pieces of information, a driver can readily see whether the discrepancy is significant relative to the driver-initiated value and the system-initiated value. For example, Applicant's FIG. 2a readily shows that the driver-initiated value is only about one-third of the system-initiated value, with the discrepancy being proportionally shown to be about two-thirds of the system-initiated value. (See also, Applicant's Specification:   [0034]). 
By contrast, Ono's graphical display merely shows points (P1) arranged according to an amount of deceleration manipulation by the user and points (P2) according to the deceleration of the vehicle according to the speed plan of the autonomous driving control. The discrepancy itself is not depicted, but rather the driver is forced to infer any discrepancy by the triangles not aligning, as shown in Ono's FIG. 6. 

By only providing two pieces of information, i.e., the point P1 and P2, a driver can tell, at best, that one value is more or less than the other, but the driver is not informed of, for example, just how much additional deceleration manipulation is necessary to match the deceleration of the system-initiated value. In other words, there is no direct indication of any discrepancy. 

Although the Office Action mentions McNew on page 4, the discussion that follows does not cite McNew or otherwise discuss it. Nonetheless, McNew is silent at least as to the above- described features.

Accordingly, Stark, McNew, and Ono, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest features of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19” (Remarks, pages 1-13)

Regarding point b, Ono’s display shows all three pieces of information. The first displayed points of P1 illustrate the driver’s deceleration intervention, shown in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7B. The second set of points P2 illustrates the autonomous vehicle’s deceleration in the same FIGs. Finally, the spatial difference between the two illustrate the discrepancy between the driver and the autonomous system. Therefore all three pieces of information  are displayed. Ono, see at least FIG. 6, FIG. 7B, ¶[0110]-¶[0112], ¶[0115]. Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific type of display disclosed by applicant) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

“Claims 5, 9, 14, 17, and 18 are each dependent either directly or indirectly from one or another of independent Claims 1 and 10 discussed above. Claims 5, 9, 14, 17, and 18 are believed patentable at least by virtue of their dependency from an independent claim believed allowable. These claims recite additional limitations which, in conformity with the features of their corresponding independent claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the art of record. However, the individual reconsideration of the patentability of each claim on its own merits is respectfully requested…
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 are dependent either directly or indirectly from one or another of the independent claims, the patentability of which is discussed above. McNew is not cited as teaching the features discussed above with respect to the independent claims, and Applicant respectfully submits McNew does not teach the features absent from Stark and Ono. Hence, these claims are allowable, at least by virtue of their dependency from an allowable claim. Further, these claims recite additional limitations which, in conformity with the features of independent Claims 1, 10, and 19, are not disclosed or suggested by the art of record. The dependent claims are therefore believed patentable. However, the individual reconsideration of the patentability of the claims on their own merits is respectfully requested”, (Remarks, pages 13-14)

Regarding point c, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the rejection of dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained. Additional arguments of the dependent claims are also unpersuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.

Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.  
Claims 1, 10, and 19 should read — following transitioning speed control from [[the]] one of the ADAS and the AD system to the vehicle driver—.
Appropriate correction is required.

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.

The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Stark et al (US 10513273 B1) in view of Ono et al. (US 20190248287 A1), henceforth known as Stark and Ono, respectively. 
Stark and Ono were first cited in a previous office action. 

Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 10, Stark discloses:
A deviation assessment system of a vehicle for supporting transitioning of speed control from one of an advanced driver-assistance system, ADAS, and an automated driving, AD, system of the vehicle, to a vehicle driver, the deviation assessment system comprising: 
a processor configured to:
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 5, lines 38-56: autonomous driving; Col 1, lines 8-15: manual driving mode;
Where computing devices 110, part of vehicle 100 (A deviation assessment system of a vehicle), transitions the vehicle from an autonomous driving mode in which speed is autonomously controlled to a manual driving mode in which speed is controlled by the driver (for supporting transitioning of speed control from one of an advanced driver-assistance system, ADAS, and an automated driving, AD, system of the vehicle, to a vehicle driver), implemented by computing devices 110 (a processor configured to:))
derive a current system-initiated value of a speed-affecting system parameter pertinent speed control by the one of the ADAS and the AD system, the speed-affecting system parameter comprising a system-initiated deceleration parameter; 
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 5, line 38-Col 6, line 12: autonomous driving, controls speed, speed limits; Abstract, Col 7, lines 35-39: autonomous deceleration;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory, controls the vehicles speed in the autonomous driving mode, according to, for example, speed limits, wherein the autonomous vehicle controls deceleration (derive a current system-initiated value of a speed-affecting system parameter pertinent speed control by the one of the ADAS and the AD system, the speed-affecting system parameter comprising a system-initiated deceleration parameter))
derive a value of a corresponding speed-affecting intervention parameter pertinent a driver-initiated speed-affecting intervention of the speed control, the speed-affecting intervention parameter comprising a driver-initiated deceleration parameter; and 
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory, receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal (derive a value of a corresponding speed-affecting intervention parameter pertinent a driver-initiated speed-affecting intervention of the speed control, the speed-affecting intervention parameter comprising a driver-initiated deceleration parameter)).
Stark is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ono teaches:
a processor configured to:… following transitioning speed control from [[the]] one of the ADAS and the AD system to the vehicle driver, present on a vehicle display a graphical representation indicative of each of: the system initiated deceleration parameter, the driver-initiated deceleration parameter, and a proportional representation of a discrepancy between the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter.
(Ono, FIG. 1; FIG. 5; FIG. 6; FIG. 7B; ¶[0078]: ECU 10A; ¶[0010]; ¶[0013], ¶[0110]-¶[0112], ¶[0015]: graphic display showing difference between deceleration due to driver input and deceleration due to autonomous vehicle control;
Where the ECU 10A (a processor configured to:), when a driver intervenes during autonomous driving, causing the vehicle to decelerate ant stop at a different point from the autonomous driving system (following transitioning speed control from one of the ADAS and the AD system to the vehicle driver), causes the onboard vehicle display to display (present on a vehicle display) a scene illustrating the difference between the deceleration by the autonomous vehicle control system and the deceleration due to the driver’s manual input, where the different points spatially illustrates the discrepancy between the driver deceleration and the autonomous system deceleration (a graphical representation indicative of each of: the system initiated deceleration parameter, the driver-initiated deceleration parameter, and a proportional representation of a discrepancy between the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Stark with the features taught by Ono so that “…The driver can easily comprehend a difference between the deceleration due to the manipulation by the driver and the deceleration due to the autonomous driving control” (Ono, ¶[0013]).

Regarding claim 19, the claim limitations recite A non-transitory computer storage medium storing a computer program containing computer program code having limitations similar to those of claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above. Regarding the additional limitations recited in claim 19, Stark further discloses:
A non-transitory computer storage medium storing a computer program containing computer program code that, when executed, causes one of a computer and a processor to perform a method for supporting transitioning of speed control from one of an advanced driver-assistance system, ADAS, and an automated driving, AD, system of a vehicle, to a vehicle driver, the method comprising:
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 5, lines 38-56: autonomous driving; Col 1, lines 8-15: manual driving mode;
Where computing devices 110, part of vehicle 100, includes computing device readable medium storing instructions for the disclosed method (A non-transitory computer storage medium storing a computer program containing computer program code that, when executed, causes one of a computer and a processor to perform a method), that includes transitions the vehicle from an autonomous driving mode in which speed is autonomously controlled to a manual driving mode in which speed is controlled by the driver (for supporting transitioning of speed control from one of an advanced driver-assistance system, ADAS, and an automated driving, AD, system of the vehicle, to a vehicle driver)).

Regarding claim 9, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 17 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 17, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 10. Stark further discloses:
wherein at least one of the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter is indicative of at least one of a brake torque and a force.
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate; Col 1, line 56 - Col 2, line 7, Col 7, lines 26-49: autonomous system deceleration, force;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal and where the autonomous system also supplies a deceleration signal (wherein at least one of the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter is indicative of at least one of a brake torque and a force)).

Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 14 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 14, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 10. Stark further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: ramp out the speed control, the ramping out ongoing for a first time duration when the discrepancy is below a deviation threshold, and ongoing for a differing second time duration when the deviation exceeds the deviation threshold.
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate; Col 1, line 56 - Col 2, line 7, Col 7, lines 26-49: autonomous system deceleration, force; Abstract, Col 1, lines 41-55, Col 7, line 49-55: decelerate at a given rate;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory (wherein the processor is further configured to) receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal and where the vehicle decelerates at a constant rate such that a first discrepancy amount would require a first time duration of deceleration (ramp out the speed control, the ramping out ongoing for a first time duration when the discrepancy is below a deviation threshold) and where a second discrepancy amount would require a second time duration of deceleration (and ongoing for a differing second time duration when the deviation exceeds the deviation threshold), wherein the threshold is a difference in discrepancy amount that results in different deceleration time durations given the constant deceleration rate).

Regarding claim 18, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 10. Stark further discloses:
wherein the deviation assessment system is comprised in a vehicle.
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 5, lines 38-56: autonomous driving; Col 1, lines 8-15: manual driving mode;
Where computing devices 110 is part of vehicle 100).

Claims 2-4, 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Stark et al (US 10513273 B1) and Ono et al. (US 20190248287 A1), and in further view of McNew (US 20170349045 A1), henceforth known as McNew. 
McNew was first cited in a previous office action. 

Regarding claim 2, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 11 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 11, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 10. Stark and Ono are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, McNew teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to present at least a portion of the graphical representation according to a first colour setting when the discrepancy is below a primary deviation threshold, and according to a differing second colour setting when the discrepancy exceeds the primary deviation threshold.
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0076]: color changed based on frequency; ¶[0005]: frequency indicative of speed deviation; 
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory (wherein the processor) displays a pattern indicating a deviation in a first color at a first frequency indicative of a first speed deviation amount (is configured to present at least a portion of the graphical representation according to a first colour setting when the discrepancy is below a primary deviation threshold) and displays the pattern in a second color at a second frequency indicative of a second speed deviation amount (and according to a differing second colour setting when the discrepancy exceeds the primary deviation threshold), wherein the threshold is a difference in frequency indicative of a difference in speed deviation amount).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Stark and Ono with the features taught by McNew because “…Arrangements described herein can eliminate the need for multiple numeric displays, avoiding the necessity of a user to manually determine a deviation between the actual speed and the target speed. Furthermore spatiotemporal patterns can allow a user to unconsciously monitor set speed deviations while performing a secondary task (such as talking on the phone, answering email, texting, and/or interacting with other occupants)” (McNew, ¶[0086]).

Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations recite a non-transitory computer storage medium having limitations similar to those of claim 11 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above.

Regarding claim 3, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 13 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 13, Stark, Ono, and McNew teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 11. Stark further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: ramp out the speed control, the ramping out ongoing for a first time duration when the discrepancy is below a secondary deviation threshold, and ongoing for a differing second time duration when the deviation exceeds the secondary deviation threshold.
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate; Col 1, line 56 - Col 2, line 7, Col 7, lines 26-49: autonomous system deceleration, force; Abstract, Col 1, lines 41-55, Col 7, line 49-55: decelerate at a given rate;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory (wherein the processor is further configured to) receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal and where the vehicle decelerates at a constant rate such that a first discrepancy amount would require a first time duration of deceleration (ramp out the speed control, the ramping out ongoing for a first time duration when the discrepancy is below a secondary deviation threshold) and where a second discrepancy amount would require a second time duration of deceleration (and ongoing for a differing second time duration when the deviation exceeds the secondary deviation threshold), wherein the threshold is a difference in discrepancy amount that results in different deceleration time durations given the constant deceleration rate).

Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 12 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 12, Stark, Ono, and McNew teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 11. Stark further discloses:
wherein at least one of the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter is indicative of at least one of a brake torque and a force.
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate; Col 1, line 56 - Col 2, line 7, Col 7, lines 26-49: autonomous system deceleration, force;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal and where the autonomous system also supplies a deceleration signal (wherein at least one of the system-initiated deceleration parameter and the driver-initiated deceleration parameter is indicative of at least one of a brake torque and a force)).

Regarding claim 6, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 15 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 15, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 14. Stark discloses the ramping out the speed control as outlined above in claim 14. Stark and Ono are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, McNew teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: derive subsequent the ramping out the speed control, a reference value of the speed-affecting system parameter indicating a value applicable should the speed control have been engaged; 
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory (wherein the processor is further configured to) determine the vehicle speed during manual operational control, i.e. after the transition (derive subsequent the ramping out the speed control) and determines the set speed from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control at regular intervals or continuously, wherein the set speed is the speed of the autonomous driving system should the autonomous driving have been engaged (a reference value of the speed-affecting system parameter indicating a value applicable should the speed control have been engaged))
derive a subsequent driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter; and 
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory determine an actual vehicle speed while in manual operational mode in order to determine a deviation at regular intervals or continuously (derive a subsequent driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter)
present a subsequent graphical representation indicative of a discrepancy between the reference value and the subsequent driver-initiated value.
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory display a pattern indicating a deviation determined at regular intervals or continuously (present a subsequent graphical representation indicative of a discrepancy) between a set speed acquired from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control and an actual speed of the vehicle while in a manual operational mode, i.e. controlled by driver (between the reference value and the subsequent driver-initiated value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Stark and Ono with the features taught by McNew because “…Arrangements described herein can eliminate the need for multiple numeric displays, avoiding the necessity of a user to manually determine a deviation between the actual speed and the target speed. Furthermore spatiotemporal patterns can allow a user to unconsciously monitor set speed deviations while performing a secondary task (such as talking on the phone, answering email, texting, and/or interacting with other occupants)” (McNew, ¶[0086]).

Regarding claim 7, Stark, Ono, and McNew teach the method according to claim 3. Stark discloses the ramping out the speed control as outlined above in claim 3. Stark further discloses
…a ramping out of the speed control…
(Stark, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 6; FIG. 7; Abstract; Col 4, lines 19-53: computing devices 110; Col 8, line 57- Col 9, line 11, Col 9 lines 18-47: input device…brake pedal… requesting a transition to a manual mode; Col 10, line 15-Col 11, line 48: brake pedal… deceleration signal… decelerate the vehicle at a certain rate; Col 1, line 56 - Col 2, line 7, Col 7, lines 26-49: autonomous system deceleration, force; Abstract, Col 1, lines 41-55, Col 7, line 49-55: decelerate at a given rate;
Where computing devices 110, implemented by processors and memory receives a driver input to a brake pedal indicative of a request to switch to manual driving in order to control speed, wherein the brake request indicates a deceleration signal and where the vehicle decelerates at a constant rate such that a first discrepancy amount would require a first time duration of deceleration and where a second discrepancy amount would require a second time duration of deceleration (a ramping out of the speed control)).
And McNew further teaches the following limitations, bolded for emphasis:
further comprising; deriving subsequent a ramping out of the speed control, a reference value of the speed-affecting system parameter indicating a value applicable should the speed control have been engaged;
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory determines the vehicle speed during manual operational control, (further comprising; deriving subsequent a ramping out of the speed control) and determines the set speed from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control at regular intervals or continuously, wherein the set speed is the speed of the autonomous driving system should the autonomous driving have been engaged (a reference value of the speed-affecting system parameter indicating a value applicable should the speed control have been engaged))
deriving a subsequent driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter; and 
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory determine an actual vehicle speed while in manual operational mode in order to determine a deviation at regular intervals or continuously (deriving a subsequent driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter)
presenting a subsequent graphical representation indicative of a discrepancy between the fictive reference value and the subsequent driver- initiated value.
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory displays a pattern indicating a deviation determined at regular intervals or continuously (presenting a subsequent graphical representation indicative of a discrepancy) between a set speed acquired from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control and an actual speed of the vehicle while in a manual operational mode, i.e. controlled by driver (between the fictive reference value and the subsequent driver- initiated value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Stark and Ono with the features taught by McNew because “…Arrangements described herein can eliminate the need for multiple numeric displays, avoiding the necessity of a user to manually determine a deviation between the actual speed and the target speed. Furthermore spatiotemporal patterns can allow a user to unconsciously monitor set speed deviations while performing a secondary task (such as talking on the phone, answering email, texting, and/or interacting with other occupants)” (McNew, ¶[0086]).

Regarding claim 8, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 16 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined below.

Regarding claim 16, Stark and Ono teach the deviation assessment system according to claim 10. Stark and Ono are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, McNew teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: derive an updated system-initiated value of the speed-affecting system parameter; 
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously; 
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory (wherein the processor is further configured to) determines the set speed from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control at regular intervals or continuously (derive an updated system-initiated value of the speed-affecting system parameter))
derive an updated driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter; and 
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory determine an actual vehicle speed while in manual operational mode in order to determine a deviation at regular intervals or continuously (derive an updated driver-initiated value of the speed-affecting intervention parameter)
present an updated graphical representation indicative of an updated discrepancy between the updated system-initiated value and the updated driver-initiated value.
(McNew, 
FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4; FIG. 8A-8D; ¶[0028]-¶[0029]: vehicle, processor, memory; ¶[0045], ¶[0075]: vehicle display 180; ¶[0053]-¶[0054]: set speed from autonomous driving system, e.g. roadway speed limits; ¶[0022]-¶[0023]: manual operational mode; ¶[0067], ¶[0073]: actual speed of vehicle, manual mode; ¶[0068], ¶[0073], ¶[0074]: deviation between set speed and actual speed; ¶[0069], ¶[0082]-¶[0085]: pattern displayed based on speed deviation; ¶[0058], ¶[0068]: deviation determined at regular intervals, continuously;
Where vehicle processors 110 and memory display a pattern indicating a deviation determined at regular intervals or continuously (present an updated graphical representation indicative of an updated discrepancy) between a set speed acquired from the autonomous driving system during manual operational control and an actual speed of the vehicle while in a manual operational mode, i.e. controlled by driver (between the updated system-initiated value and the updated driver-initiated value)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Stark and Ono with the features taught by McNew because “…Arrangements described herein can eliminate the need for multiple numeric displays, avoiding the necessity of a user to manually determine a deviation between the actual speed and the target speed. Furthermore spatiotemporal patterns can allow a user to unconsciously monitor set speed deviations while performing a secondary task (such as talking on the phone, answering email, texting, and/or interacting with other occupants)” (McNew, ¶[0086]).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oguri (US 20160176413 A1) discloses a driving assistance apparatus outputs a deceleration recommendation indicator as an indicator of recommending deceleration of a vehicle to a display section. The deceleration recommendation indicator recommends deceleration of the vehicle for a target position ahead in the traveling direction of the vehicle. The deceleration recommendation indicator varies in accordance with the speed of the vehicle.

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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.





/T.M.M./               Examiner, Art Unit 3668                                                                                                                                                                                         /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_17509339_-_TRANSITIONING_OF_VEHICLE_SPEED_CONTROL_FROM_AN_-_Rejection&oldid=610385"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.