Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-02-26)

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of the claims in this application:

Listing of Claims:

1\. (Currently Amended) A method of personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the method comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
presenting a speed limiter user interface element to a user on a visual user interface;
when a user selects the speed limiter user interface element, cause a menu to be presented to the user on the visual user interface, the menu including a plurality of speed limiter personalization options including at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, amap-based option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option;
receiving a user input corresponding to a selected one of the speed limiter personalization options ; and
causing the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options to be implemented.

2\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein, when the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options is the traffic sign-based option, thecausing includes:acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle;
analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data;
responsive to detecting a speed limit sign in the visual data, determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and
adjusting the speed limiter based on the speed limit determined based on the speed limit sign.

3\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein, when the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options is the map-based option, thecausing includes:determining a current location of the vehicle on a map;
determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and
responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle.

4\. (Currently Amended) A method of personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the method comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a speed limiter personalization setting, the speed limiter personalization setting including traffic sign speed limit recognition and map-based speed limit recognition\[\[,\]\]; and
causing the speed limiter personalization setting to be implemented including: acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle;
analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data;
responsive to detecting that a speed limit sign is present in the visual data:
determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the determined speed limit; and
responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data:
determining a current location of the vehicle on a map;

determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and
responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle.

5\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein, when the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options is the user defined option, the causing includes:receiving a user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter; and
adjusting the speed limiter based on the user defined setting.

6\. (Currently Amended) A method of personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the method comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting is-binga speed limit distance trigger before a reduced speed limit zone, whereby when the speed limiter will be triggered before the reduced speed limit zone is selectable by the user; and
causing the user defined setting to be implemented.

7\. (Currently Amended) A method of personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the method comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting is-beiga brake setting, whereby a degree of braking upon triggering the speed limiter is selectable by the user; and
causing the user defined setting to be implemented.

8\. (Currently Amended) A method of personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the method comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input being a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence model; and
causing the recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion to be implemented.

9\. (Canceled)

10\. (Currently Amended) A system for personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the system comprising:a visual user interface; and
 a processor operatively connected to the visual user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
presenting a speed limiter user interface element to a user on a visual user interface;
when a user selects the speed limiter user interface element, cause a menu to be presented to the user on the visual user interface, the menu including a plurality of speed limiter personalization options including at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, a map-based option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option;
receiving a user input corresponding to a selected one of the speed limiter personalization options ; and
causing the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options to be implemented.

11\. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein, when the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options is the traffic sign-based option, thecausing includes:acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle;
analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data;
responsive to detecting a speed limit sign in the visual data, determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and
adjusting the speed limiter based on the speed limit determined based on the speed limit sign.

12\. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein, when the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options is the map-based option, thecausing includes:determining a current location of the vehicle on a map;
determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and
responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle.

13\. (Currently Amended) A system for personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the system comprising:a user interface; and
a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on the user interface, the user input being a speed limiter personalization setting including traffic sign speed limit recognition and map-based speed limit recognition\[\[,\]\]; and
causing the speed limiter personalization setting to be implemented including: acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data;
responsive to detecting that a speed limit sign is present in the visual data:
determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the determined speed limit; and
responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data:
determining a current location of the vehicle on a map;
determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and
responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle.

14\. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein the speed limiter personalization ptions is the user defined option, the causing includes:receiving a user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter; and
adjusting the speed limiter based on the user defined setting.

15\. (Currently Amended) A system for personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the system comprising:a user interface; and
a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting of eing a speed limit distance trigger before a reduced speed limit zone,
whereby when the speed limit will be triggered before the reduced speed limit zone is selectable by the user; andcausing the user defined setting to be implemented.

16\. (Currently Amended) A system for personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the system comprising:a user interface; and
a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting ef being a brake setting, whereby a degree of braking upon triggering the speed limiter is selectable by the user; and
causing the user defined setting to be implemented.

Amendment A

17\. (Currently Amended) A system for personalizing a speed limiter for a vehicle, the system comprising:a user interface; and
a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:causing the speed limiter to be activated;
receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input being a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence mode; and
causing the recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion to be implemented.

18\. (Canceled)

19\. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 10, wherein the visual user interface is one of:a graphical user interface presented on a display; and
a projection presented on a surface.

20\. (Original) The system of claim 19, wherein the visual user interface the visual user interface is located within a vehicle.

OFFICE ACTION:
Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or disclose the following limitations in combination with the other limitations in the claims:
“presenting a speed limiter user interface element to a user on a visual user interface; when a user selects the speed limiter user interface element, cause a menu to be presented to the user on the visual user interface, the menu including a plurality of speed limiter personalization options including at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, a map-based option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option; receiving a user input corresponding to a selected one of the speed limiter personalization options” in claim 1;
“acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle; analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data; responsive to detecting that a speed limit sign is present in the visual data: determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the determined speed limit; and responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data: determining a current location of the vehicle on a map; determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle” in claim 4;
“causing the speed limiter to be activated; receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter” in claim 6;
“causing the speed limiter to be activated; receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter” in claim 7;
“a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence model; and causing the recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion to be implemented” in claim 8;
“presenting a speed limiter user interface element to a user on a visual user interface; when a user selects the speed limiter user interface element, cause a menu to be presented to the user on the visual user interface, the menu including a plurality of speed limiter personalization options including at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, a map-based option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option; receiving a user input corresponding to a selected one of the speed limiter personalization options” in claim 10;
“acquiring visual data of a driving environment of the vehicle analyzing the visual data to detect whether a speed limit sign is present in the visual data; responsive to detecting that a speed limit sign is present in the visual data: determining a speed limit based on the speed limit sign; and adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the determined speed limit; and responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data: determining a current location of the vehicle on a map; determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle” in claim 13;
“a user interface; and a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising: causing the speed limiter to be activated; receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter” in claim 15;
“a user interface; and a processor operatively connected to the user interface and programmed to initiate executable operations comprising: causing the speed limiter to be activated; receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter” in claim 16; and
“a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence mode; and causing the recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion to be implemented” in claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
The foregoing amendments and these remarks are timely filed in response to the non- final Office Action mailed on October 9, 2024 ("Office Action"). No fees are believed to be due in connection with this paper. Nonetheless, the Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees which may be required in connection with this response, including any underpayments, to Deposit Account No. 50-6747. The Commissioner is also authorized to credit any overpayments to Deposit Account No. 50-6747.
At the time of the Office Action, claims 1-20 were pending in the application. Claims 1- 20 are rejected. More particularly, claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112; claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each of the rejections will be addressed in turn below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C.
§
As noted above, claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. In particular, claims
7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. The Office Action states "The term "sharply or softly" in claims 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term "sharply or softly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate action is required." See Office Action at page 2. Each of these claims will be addressed in turn below.
Claim 7
With respect to the rejection of claim 7, Applicant respectfully disagrees. Nonethelesss, as set forth in the Listing of Claims above, claim 7 is amended, in relevant part, as follows: "whereby
a user can select whether to brake sharply or softly
a degree of braking
upon triggering the speed limiter
is selectable by the user."
Support for these amendments can be found at least at 11 [0074]-[0076] of the original specification and/or original claim 16.
Applicant respectfully submits that these amendments traverse the indefiniteness
rejection, as the terms "sharply" and "softly" are deleted. Applicant respectfully submits that the
phrase "a degree of braking" is sufficiently definite. Indeed, during the Examiner Interview, the Examiner indicated that this amendment would overcome the rejection. Accordingly, reconsideration and removal of the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) is respectfully requested.
Claim 16
With respect to the rejection of claim 16, Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant
notes that claim 16 does not use the terms "softly" or "sharply" and that the extant recitations are sufficiently definite. During the Examiner Interview, the Examiner indicated that claim 16 is acceptable in its original form relative to the indefiniteness rejection. Accordingly, reconsideration either of the noted terms. Accordingly, reconsideration and removal of the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C.
@@
,
As noted above, claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and
claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. More particularly, claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2012/0215416 to Poulin ("Poulin"). Claims 2, 6-7, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2015/0278615 to Ogawa ("Ogawa"). Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2018/0354515 to Allexi et al. ("Allexi"). Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2019/0363988 to Dey et al. ("Dey"). Claims 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2016/0347312 to Tomatsu et al. ("Tomatsu"). Each rejection will be addressed in turn below.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poulin.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Nonetheless, claim 1 is amended, as set forth in the Listing of Claims above, to advance the prosecution. Support for these amendments can be found at least at paragraphs [0049]-[0071] of the original specification, original drawing FIGS. 2-4, and original claim 9. Claim 9 is canceled. Applicant reserves the right to present claims 1 and 9 as originally presented again in this application or in one or more continuing applications.
Claim 1 as amended recites "presenting a speed limiter user interface element to a user on a visual user interface", "when a user selects the speed limiter user interface element, cause a menu to be presented to the user on the visual user interface, the menu including a plurality of speed limiter personalization options including at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, a map- based option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option", "receiving a user input corresponding to a selected one of the speed limiter personalization options" and "causing the selected one of the speed limiter personalization options to be implemented." It is respectfully submitted that Poulin fails to disclose these recitations. With respect to claim 1 as originally presented, the Office Action states:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Poulin discloses a method of personalizing a speed limiter 20
for a vehicle (see paragraph [0009]), the method comprising: causing the speed limiter to be
activated (see paragraph [0016]-[0030]); receiving a user input on a user interface 32, the user
input including a speed limiter personalization setting (see paragraphs [0037]-[0042]); and
causing the speed limiterpersonalization setting to be implemented. See paragraphs [0040]- [0053].
See Office Action at page 3.
However, the cited portions of Poulin do not disclose the recitations of claim 1 as amended. Moreover, none of the other portions of Poulin disclose these recitations. For instance, Poulin does not present a user with a speed limiter user interface element. Poulin does not present a menu on a visual interface with a plurality of speed limiter personalization options. Moreover, Poulin does not disclose at least two of: a traffic sign-based option, a map-based
option, a user defined option, a recommendation option, and an auto brake setting option. Still further, it is respectfully submitted that none of the other applied references disclose these recitations.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-9
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claims 4, 6, 7, and 8 are rewritten in independent form; therefore, these claims will be addressed separately. In view of the incorporation of its recitations into claim 1, claim 9 is canceled; therefore, its rejection is moot.
With respect to claims 2, 3, and 5, it is well settled that if an independent claim is
nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious. MPEP § 2143.03; In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. As a result, claims 2, 3, and 5 are necessarily distinguishable over the applied art at least in view of their dependency upon claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5 is respectfully requested. Applicant notes that amendments are made to claims 2, 3, and 5 for consistency with the amendments made to claim 1.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Allexi. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 4 is rewritten in independent form to incorporate the recitations of claim 1, along with some streamlining of the recitations.
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that Poulin and Allexi cannot be combined as proposed in the Office Action. However, assuming arguendo that the proposed combination can somehow be properly made, which Applicant does not concede, the Poulin- Allexi combination fails to teach each and every recitation of claim 4. Every claim recitation
must be considered in an obviousness determination. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Further, MPEP 2143 states "[t]o establish a prima facie case of obviousness ... the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations."
For instance, claim 4 recites "receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a speed limiter personalization setting, the speed limiter personalization setting including traffic sign speed limit recognition and map-based speed limit recognition"
and
"responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data: determining a current location of the vehicle on a map; determining whether the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle; and responsive to determining that the map includes speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle, adjusting a setting of the speed limiter based on the speed limit information for the current location of the vehicle." With respect to these recitations, the Office Actions states:
and responsive to determining that a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data:
determining a current location of the vehicle on a map (see paragraph [0033]); determining whether the map includes speed limit information forthe current location of the vehicle (see
paragraph [0034]);
See Office Action at page 6.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The cited portion of Dey is presented below:
[0033] In one embodiment, the vehicle comprises a navi- [0034] In a still further embodiment, the vehicle comprises gation system and the speed limiter system is configured and a camera sensor and an image evaluating device and the operative to adjust the speed limiter activating threshold speed limiter system is configured for the purpose of adjust- value in dependence upon speed limiter information of the ing the speed limiter activating threshold value in depen- navigation system. This offers the advantage that the speed dence upon speed limiter information that is obtained by the limiter activating threshold value is adjusted automatically image evaluating unit from images that are recorded by the to the environment in which the vehicle is currently moving. camera sensor. In a manner similar to the evaluation of data As a consequence, the range in which the sensitivity of the of a navigation system, this offers the advantage that the auto-braking system with respect to overriding decisions of speed limiter activating threshold value is automatically the driver by means of raising the auto-braking override adjusted to the environment in which the vehicle is currently threshold value to the speed limiter override threshold value moving, wherein in this case reference is not made or is slightly reduced to the respective required range.  reference is not only made to the navigation system for the speed limiter data that disclose the vehicle position but rather current information is actively obtained from envi- ronmental data, by way of example street signs.
Notably, Allexi fails to disclose a method in which two speed limiter personalization settings. Moreover, Allexi does not disclose a method in which traffic sign speed limit recognition is initially used and, if a speed limit sign is not present in the visual data, then map- based speed limit recognition. Paragraph [0033] of Allexi mentions using a navigation system in connection with a speed limiter, and paragraph [0034] of Allexi mentions using an image evaluating unit. These are described as being separate embodiments. There is no teaching, suggestion, or even hint in Allexi of these embodiments being used together. Moreover, there is no teaching or suggestion of any particular order in which these embodiments are used.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Ogawa. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 6 is rewritten in independent form to incorporate the recitations of claim 1, along with some streamlining of the recitations.
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that Poulin and Ogawa cannot be combined as proposed in the Office Action. However, assuming arguendo that the proposed combination can somehow be properly made, which Applicant does not concede, the Poulin- Ogawa combination fails to teach each and every recitation of claim 6. Every claim recitation must be considered in an obviousness determination. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Further, MPEP 2143 states "[t]o establish a prima facie case of obviousness ... the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations."
For instance, claim 6 recites "receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input
including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting being a speed limit distance trigger before a reduced speed limit zone, whereby when the speed limiter will be
triggered before the reduced speed limit zone is selectable by the user" and "causing the user
defined setting to be implemented." With respect to these recitations, the Office Actions states:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Poulin fails to explicitly disclose, but Ogawa discloses wherein the
user defined setting of the speed limiter is a speed limit distance trigger before a reduced speed
limit zone (see FIG. 2B), whereby the user can select when the speed limiter will be triggered
before the reduced speed limit zone. See paragraphs [0050]-[0054].
See Office Action at page 5.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The cited portion of Ogawa is presented below:
[0050] FIGS. 2A and 2B are diagram illustrating a color  by correctly recognizing whether the stop lamps of the lead- image 126 and a distance image 128, respectively. For  ing vehicle are illuminated based on the color values. More- example, suppose that the two imaging devices 110 generate  over, the vehicle exterior environment recognition device 120 the color image 126 corresponding to the detection area 124  identifies a traffic sign located at a road shoulder or a gate, as illustrated in FIG. 2A. Note that only one of the two color  further recognizes the content of the traffic sign (e.g., a speed images 126 is schematically illustrated here in order to facili- limit), and then controls the speed of the vehicle 1 at a safe tate understandings. The vehicle exterior environment recog-  speed within the speed limit through the vehicle control nition device 120 obtains the parallax for every block from  device 130. such a color image 126, and forms the distance image 128 as  [0052] Note that the relative distance can be found by con- illustratedin FIG.2B. Eachblockinthe distance image128 is  verting the parallax information for every block in the dis- associated with the parallax of the block. Here, the block of  tance image 128 into three-dimensional positional informa- which the parallax is derived is expressed by a black dot for  tion by using a so-called stereo method. Here, the stereo convenience of explanation. In this example, the color image  method is a method of deriving the relative distance of the 126 and the distance image 128 are generated based on the  object with respect to the imaging devices 110 based on the first image and the second image, respectively
parallax of the object by using a triangulation method.
[0051] Further, the vehicle exterior environment recogni-  [0053] Returning to FIG. 1, the vehicle control device 130 tion device 120 uses the color values based on the color image  receives operator's operational inputs through a steering 126, and three-dimensional positional information in the real  wheel 132, an accelerator or gas pedal134, and a brake pedal space including a relative distance with the vehicle 1 that is  136, and transmits the operational inputs to a steering mecha- calculated based on the distance image 128 to group the  nism 142, a drive mechanism 144, and a brake mechanism blocks that are equal in the color values and are close at the  146, respectively, to control the vehicle 1. The vehicle control three-dimensional positional information as an object. The  device 130 also controls the drive mechanism 144 and the vehicle exterior enviromnent recognition device 120 then  brake mechanism 146 according to instructions from the identifies to which particular object (e.g., a leading vehicle) vehicle exterior environment recognition device 120. the object in the detection area ahead of the vehicle 1 corre-  [0054] Next, a configuration of the vehicle exterior envi- sponds. For example, the vehicle exterior environment rec- ronment recognition device 120 is described in detail. Here, ognition device 120 can identify a leading vehicle that travels particular processing of the traffic sign that is a feature of this forward based on the relative distance, etc., and can further example is described in detail, and description of configura- grasp the acceleration and deceleration of the leading vehicle tions unrelated to the feature of this example is omitted.
However, as is readily apparent from the above, there is no teaching or suggestion in
Ogawa of a user defined setting of the speed limiter, and the user defined setting being a speed
limit distance trigger before a reduced speed limit zone. Indeed, during the Examiner Interview
summarized above, tentative agreement was reached that the applied art does not disclose these
recitations.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Ogawa. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 7 is rewritten in independent form to incorporate the recitations of claim 1, along with some streamlining of the recitations.
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that Poulin and Ogawa cannot be combined as proposed in the Office Action. However, assuming arguendo that the proposed combination can somehow be properly made, which Applicant does not concede, the Poulin- Ogawa combination fails to teach each and every recitation of claim 7. Every claim recitation must be considered in an obviousness determination. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Further, MPEP 2143 states "[t]o establish a prima facie case of obviousness ... the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations."
For instance, claim 7 recites :receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input including a user defined setting of the speed limiter, the user defined setting being a brake setting, whereby a degree of braking upon triggering the speed limiter is selectable by the user" and "causing the user defined setting to be implemented." With respect to these recitations, the Office Actions states:
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Poulin fails to explicitly disclose, but Ogawa discloses wherein the user defined setting of the speed limiter is a brake setting, whereby a user can select whether to
brake sharply or softly upon triggering the speed limiter. See paragraph [0053]. See Office Action at page 5.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The cited portion of Ogawa is presented below:
[0053] Returning to FIG. 1, the vehicle control device 130 receives operator's operational inputs through a steering wheel 132, an accelerator or gas peda1134, and a brake pedal 136, and transmits the operational inputs to a steering mecha- nism 142, a drive mechanism 144, and a brake mechanism 146, respectively, to control the vehicle 1. The vehicle control device 130 also controls the drive mechanism 144 and the brake mechanism 146 according to instructions from the vehicle exterior environment recognition device 120. However, it is clear that there is no teaching or suggestion in Ogawa of a user defined setting of the speed limiter, and the user defined setting being a brake setting, whereby a degree of braking upon triggering the speed limiter is selectable by the user. Indeed, during the Examiner Interview summarized above, tentative agreement was reached that the applied art does not disclose these recitations.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Dey. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 8 is rewritten in independent form to incorporate the recitations of claim 1, along with some streamlining of the recitations.
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that Poulin and Dey cannot be
combined as proposed in the Office Action. However, assuming arguendo that the proposed combination can somehow be properly made, which Applicant does not concede, the Poulin-Dey combination fails to teach each and every recitation of claim 8. Every claim recitation must be considered in an obviousness determination. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970) ("All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art."). Further, MPEP 2143 states "[t]o establish a prima facie case of obviousness ... the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations."
For instance, claim 8 recites "receiving a user input on a user interface, the user input
being a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence model" and
"causing the recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion to be implemented." With respect
to these recitations, the Office Actions states:
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Poulin fails to explicitly disclose, but Dey et al discloses wherein the
speed limiter personalization setting is for a recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by
an artificial intelligence model. See paragraph [0039].
See Office Action at page 6.
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The cited portion of Dey is presented below: [0039] A speed limiter 206 includes or is otherwise in operable communication with a plurality of sensors that monitor the health of the server 204. For instance, in the FIG. 2 example, the speed limiter 206 includes a network load sensor 208 and a memory load sensor 210. These and/or other sensors may be provided in different example embodi- ments. For instance, sensors may be provided to monitor available processing power, CPU utilization, number of active threads, number of active requests, etc. The speed limiter 206 applies artificial intelligence to examine output
from the sensors to predict when problems might occur. Based on the output from the speed limiter 206, the server 204 may engage in a more managed or controlled processing of requests, e.g., so as to help avert the anticipated problems. The speed limiter 206 may be implemented as a software module in certain example embodiments. In certain example embodiments, the speed limiter 206 may be integrated into the server 204 (and, for example, executed as software by hardware processing resources of the server). In other example embodiments, the speed limiter 206 may be sepa- rate from but in communication with the server 204.
From the above-cited portion of Ogawa, it is apparent that it does not disclose
recommendation-based speed limiter suggestion by an artificial intelligence model. While
Ogawa mentions an artificial intelligence to examine output from the sensors to predict when problems might occur, it does not mention making a speed limiter suggestion responsive to a
user input. Moreover, none of the other portions of Ogawa disclose such recitations.
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 8 is respectfully requested.
Claim 10
As noted above, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Poulin. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 10 includes recitations similar to those discussed in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant adopts and incorporates the arguments and remarks made with respect to claim 1 in this regard here in connection with claim 10.
Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 10 is respectfully requested.
Claims 11-20
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103. Applicant respectfully
disagrees. Claims 13, 15, 16, and 17 are rewritten in independent form; therefore, these claims will be addressed separately. In view of the incorporation of its recitations into claim 10, claim 18 is canceled; therefore, its rejection is moot.
With respect to claims 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20, it is well settled that if an independent
claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim depending therefrom is nonobvious. MPEP § 2143.03; In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Claims 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 10. As a result, claims 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 are necessarily distinguishable over the applied art at least in view of their dependency upon claim 1. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 is respectfully requested. Applicant notes that amendments are made to claims 11, 12, 14, and 19 for consistency with the amendments made to claim 1.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Allexi. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 13 is amended as set forth in the Listing of Claims above. Claim 13 as amended includes recitations similar to those discussed in connection with claim 4 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant adopts and incorporates the arguments and remarks made with respect to claim 4 in this regard here in connection with claim 13.
Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 13 is respectfully requested.
Claim 1
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Ogawa. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 15 is amended as set forth in the Listing of Claims above. Claim 15 as amended includes recitations similar to those discussed in connection with claim 6 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant adopts and incorporates the arguments and remarks made with respect to claim 6 in this regard here in connection with claim 15.
Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 15 is respectfully requested.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Ogawa. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 is amended as set forth in the Listing of Claims above. Claim 16 as amended includes recitations similar to those discussed in connection with claim 7 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant adopts and incorporates the arguments and remarks made with respect to claim 7 in this regard here in connection with claim 16.
Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 16 is respectfully requested.
Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Poulin in view of Dey. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 17 is amended as set forth in the Listing of Claims
above. Claim 17 as amended includes recitations similar to those discussed in connection with claim 8 as amended. Accordingly, Applicant adopts and incorporates the arguments and remarks made with respect to claim 8 in this regard here in connection with claim 17.
Thus, for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is traversed. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 17 is respectfully requested.
Conclusion