DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-22, 24, 30,33, 35, 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878)
As to claim 21 Schulz discloses an apparatus comprising:
a control unit for a vehicle that is equipped to cause automatic interventions in the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle wherein the control unit is configured to: determine reaction information relating to a reaction of a user of the vehicle to at least one automatic intervention of the vehicle(Abstract “detecting a driver intervention in a driving behavior of the vehicle due to an intervention of at least one actuator triggered by the driver assistance system”);
Schulz does not explicitly disclose automatically adjust a value of at least one operating parameter of the vehicle used on future automatic interventions in the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle, so as to match a value generated via the reaction of the user.
Gohlke teaches automatically adjust a value of at least one operating parameter of the vehicle used on future automatic interventions in the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle, so as to match a value generated via the reaction of the user (Paragraph 29 “For example, if a particularly fuel-saving driving profile (ECO) was selected up to that point, i.e., was active, then it may be recognized as a deviation that the driver actually wants a sporty driving profile with an increased acceleration capacity or faster response behavior of the motor vehicle. In this example, this is justified, e.g., by the fact that the full depression of the accelerator pedal (kickdown) is not compatible with a minimal fuel consumption and that based on higher prioritized safety considerations the driving maneuver, i.e., the overtaking process, execution and completion as quickly as possible is more desired by the driver as a minimal fuel consumption, at least with a higher probability, because otherwise the driver would not have initiated the overtaking process, for example. In this case, the ECO driving profile may therefore meet the requirements of the current driving maneuver or the current situation, i.e., the overtaking maneuver, less well than the sport driving profile.”, Paragraph 31 “Another benefit of the two-part construction of the driver assistance system is that the driver assistance system can be reset to a delivery state, whereby adjustments to the driver assistance system that have been learned over time can be discarded. The given control matrix then enables the driver assistance system to continue to perform its task and the behavior can be readjusted over time by re-teaching and adapting the driver assistance system, for example to a new driver of the motor vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of adjusting the operating parameter which has influence on future operations for the purpose of improving the drivers experience by reducing unnecessary operation intervention during autonomous driving.
Shculz does not explicitly disclose the at least one operating parameter is adjusted form a first value of the given parameter to a second value of the same given parameter
Tan teaches the at least one operating parameter is adjusted from a first value of the given parameter is adjusted from a first value of the given parameter to a second value of the same given parameter (Column 4 lines 5-12 “Learning may also occur while the ACC system is active, such as when the driver is overriding the ACC system's acceleration. For example, the driver may manually accelerate more aggressively, after a preceding vehicle has left the host vehicle lane. In that case, that personalization algorithm 16 may, over time, adjust the corresponding parameter in the parameter set 20, to allow the ACC system to use more aggressive acceleration in similar situations.”), and
The given parameter is at least one of: i) a minimum permissible safety distance of the vehicle from another road suer, ii) a maximum permissible driving speed of the vehicle, iii) a speed of the vehicle to be driven on average by the vehicle, iv) a maximum permissible longitudinal acceleration and/or deceleration of the vehicle, v) a maximum permissible lateral acceleration of the vehicle, vi) a maximum permissible steering torque and/or a maximum permissible steering angle on a steering wheel of the vehicle, vii) a maximum permissible rate of change or a maximum permissible time gradient of the steering torque and/or of the steering angle of the steering system of the vehicle, viii) a tendency of the vehicle to perform automatic lane changes on a multi-lane road, ix) dynamics when performing lane change, or x) a differential speed relative to a vehicle ahead, which must be present at least before a maneuver of overtaking the vehicle ahead is initiated (Claim 11 “at least two learned preferred parameters indicative of the identified particular driver's preference for the determined driving condition of the equipped vehicle and (ii) the determined driving condition of the equipped vehicle; wherein said at least two learned preferred parameters comprises (i) an acceleration preference of the identified driver and a deceleration preference of the identified driver and (ii) a preferred target following distance for the adaptive cruise control system to use in establishing a distance of the equipped vehicle behind a leading vehicle ahead of the equipped vehicle; and wherein said driver assistance system adjusts the preferred target following distance to maintain a predetermined safe following distance for the particular determined driving condition.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of adjusting the driving parameters to learn drivers preferences in automated interventions.
As to claim 22 Schulz discloses an apparatus wherein
the control unit is also configured to determine sensor data relating to the user of the vehicle; the sensor data indicate a head and/or face of the user and/or a body-related measurement variable of the user(Paragraph 43); and
the reaction information is determined based on the sensor data in relation to the user of the vehicle(Paragraph 43).
As to claim 24 Schulz discloses an apparatus wherein the change in the effect on the vehicle includes:
a change in the distance between the vehicle and another road user;
a change in the time of an intervention in the lateral and/or longitudinal control of the vehicle;
a change in a longitudinal acceleration and/or deceleration of the vehicle;
a change in a steering angle and/or steering torque on a steering wheel of the vehicle(Paragraph 42);
a change in the dynamics of the vehicle when changing lanes; and/or a cancellation of a lane change.
As to claim 30 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 21.
As to claim 33 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 22.
As to claim 35 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 24.
Claims 25-26, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Ueda (US 2013/0197758)
As to claim 25 Ueda teaches an apparatus wherein the control unit is also configured to:
determine, on the basis of the reaction information, that automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle caused by one or more automatic interventions of the vehicle causes stress and/or uncertainty to the user (Paragraph 138); and
change a value of the at least one operating parameter of the vehicle in order to reduce the dynamics of the automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle and/or to increase one or more safety distances to be observed during the automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle (Paragraph 139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of changing the value of the operating parameter of the vehicle based on the stress caused to the user for the purpose of improving the driving experience for the user.
As to claim 26 Ueda teaches an apparatus wherein the control unit is also configured to:
determine on the basis of the reaction information that automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle caused by one or more automatic interventions of the vehicle does not cause stress and/or uncertainty to the user (Paragraph 138); and
change a value of the at least one operating parameter of the vehicle in order to increase the dynamics of the automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle and/or to reduce one or more safety distances to be observed during the automatic longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle(Paragraph 142).
As to claim 36 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 25.
As to claim 37 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 26.
As to claim 45 Tan teaches an apparatus wherein:
the vehicle comprises one or more control means which enable the user to exert an effect on the longitudinal and the lateral control of the vehicle by operating the one or more control means (Column 3 lines 23-33);
the control unit is configured to detect an operation of the one or more control means, via which a change is caused that pertains to an effect on an automatic intervention of the vehicle on the vehicle(Column 2 lines 50-67); and
The reaction information indicated the change in the effect on the vehicle caused by the operation of the control means (Column 3 lines 34-56).
As to claim 46 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 45.
Claims 27, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878) applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Kallmeyer (US 2019/0071078)
As to claim 27 Kayllmeyer teaches an apparatus wherein the at least one operating parameter includes:
a minimum permissible safety distance of the vehicle from another road user;
a recommended speed of the vehicle, at which the vehicle should be driven on average;
a maximum permissible longitudinal acceleration and/or deceleration of the vehicle (Paragraph 24);
a maximum permissible lateral acceleration of the vehicle;
a maximum permissible steering torque and/or a maximum permissible steering angle on a steering system of the vehicle;
a maximum permissible speed change or a maximum permissible gradient against time of the steering torque and/or the steering angle on the steering system of the vehicle;
a tendency of the vehicle to perform automatic lane changes on a multi-lane road; and/or
dynamics when performing a lane change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kallmeyer to include the teachings of adjusting the operating parameter such as a maximum speed of the vehicle for the purpose of safely controlling the vehicle autonomously
As to claim 38 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 27.
Claims 28-29, 31-32, 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Fung (US 2016/0001781)
As to claim 28 Fung teaches an apparatus wherein the control unit is also configured to:
for a plurality of different users of the vehicle, determine a corresponding plurality of user- specific values for the at least one operating parameter and to store it in a corresponding plurality of user profiles(Paragraph 461);
for a journey of the vehicle, determine the user from the plurality of different users who use the vehicle(Paragraph 461); and
cause automatic interventions in the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle in accordance with the user profile of the identified user when the vehicle is travelling(Paragraph 497-498).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of storing different user profiles for the purpose of controlling the vehicle for different types of users.
As to claim 29 Schulz in view Beaurepaire, and Fung teaches an apparatus wherein
the control unit is also configured to determine a driving behavior preferred by the user on the basis of the reaction information(Fung Paragraph 497);;
the driving behavior preferred by the user indicates:
a lane preferred by the user in a construction site area; and/or
that the user is reluctant to drive alongside a truck or bus in heavy traffic (Beaurepaire Paragraph 91); and
the control unit is also configured to perform automatic interventions in the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle in order to implement the driving behavior preferred by the user (Beaurepaire Paragraph 60).
As to claim 31 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 28.
As to claim 32 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 28.
As to claim 39 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 28.
As to claim 40 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 29.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Emura (US 2018/0093676),
As to claim 41 Emura teaches an apparatus wherein the vehicle comprises one or more control means which enable the user to exert an effect on the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle by operating the one or more control means;
the control unit is configured to detect an operation of the one or more control means, via which a change is caused that pertains to an effect of an automatic intervention of the vehicle on the vehicle (Paragraph 348-349);
the reaction information indicates the change in the effect on the vehicle caused by the operation of the control means(Paragraph 348-349); and
the change in the effect on the longitudinal and/or lateral control of the vehicle includes: i) a change in the dynamics of the vehicle when changing lanes; and/or ii) a cancellation of a lane change(Paragraph 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of adjusting the operating parameter which has influence on future operations for the purpose of improving the drivers experience by reducing unnecessary operation intervention during autonomous driving.
As to claim 42 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 41.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US 2019/0210614) in view of Gohlke (US 2021/0039663) , and Tan (US 9,623,878) as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Limbacher (US 2021/0016789)
As to claim 43 Limbacher teaches an apparatus wherein the multiple user reactions gathered from different types of automatic interventions are subjected to a statistical evaluation (Paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Schulz to include the teachings of gathering reactions of multiple users of automatic interventions for the purpose of learning the drivers preferences..
As to claim 44 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-22, 24-33, 35-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 J 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights