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 1, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Xu (US 2020/0200558), and Iwai (US 2018/0023966)
As to claim 1 Enthaler discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle, the driver assistance system comprising:
an operating mode detection unit configured to;
access stored route-use data that comprise per-road section records of the host vehicle, and determine, form the stored route-use data, that a road section to be driven has been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the host vehicle (Paragraph 15 “A route section that has not been approved for driving in the autonomous operating mode may be, for example, a safety-relevant region, a temporarily restricted region, a region with a high volume of traffic, a conflict zone, a war zone or other regions where operation of motor vehicles in an autonomous operating mode, i.e., piloted mode, is neither desired nor allowed.”);;
detect that the autonomous operation of the vehicle over the road section is not currently possible (Paragraph 15 “A route section that has not been approved for driving in the autonomous operating mode may be, for example, a safety-relevant region, a temporarily restricted region, a region with a high volume of traffic, a conflict zone, a war zone or other regions where operation of motor vehicles in an autonomous operating mode, i.e., piloted mode, is neither desired nor allowed.”);
generate a signal that indicates autonomous driving of the vehicle over the road section is not possible (Paragraph 16-17 “Thus, at least one route section that has not been approved for driving in the autonomous operating mode may be stored, i.e., saved in the navigation device. A parameter determining that this stretch of road is not approved for driving in the autonomous operating mode is associated with this route section accordingly. It is thus impossible to drive on such a restricted route section in an autonomous operating mode. If such a route section is included in the route planned by the navigation device, this necessitates the steps explained below. It is preferably possible in particular to provide that a warning is output prior to and/or upon reaching a route section not been approved for driving in autonomous operating mode”); and
a signaling unit configured to output an alert to a driver of the host vehicle, an alert indicating that autonomous driving of the host vehicle over the road section is not currently (Paragraph 17 “It is preferably possible in particular to provide that a warning is output prior to and/or upon reaching a route section not been approved for driving in autonomous operating mode. This warning may be output haptically, e.g., by vibration of at least one part of the motor vehicle, in particular a seat or the steering wheel, or acoustically, e.g., by output of an audio signal by means of at least one output device of the motor vehicle, or visually, e.g., by a display on a display device of the motor vehicle.”).
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose wherein the operating-mode detection unit is further configured to generate a signal to the signaling unit only when both (i) the road section is determined to have been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the host vehicle based on the per-road-section records, and (ii) autonomous of the host vehicle over the road section is detected as not currently possible
Xu teaches wherein the operating-mode detection unit is further configured to generate a signal to the signaling unit only when both (i) the road section is determined to have been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the host vehicle based on the per-road-section records, and (ii) autonomous of the host vehicle over the road section is detected as not currently possible(Paragraph 70 “At block 406, a message is provided to the human operator indicating the status of autonomous driving. For example, the vehicle apparatus 20 may provide a message, indication, alert, and/or the like that is perceivable by the human operator of the vehicle 5. For example, the vehicle apparatus 20 may comprise means, such as processor 22, memory 24, user interface 28, and/or the like, for providing a message, indication, alert, and/or the like that is perceivable by the human operator of the vehicle 5. For example, the message, indication, alert and/or the like may indicate the status of autonomous driving of the vehicle 5, the status of autonomous driving in a portion of the geographic zone that the vehicle 5 is located in and/or is expected to enter based on a route the vehicle 5 is traversing, an expected change in the status of autonomous driving of the vehicle 5, and/or other information/data regarding autonomous driving and/or the expected need for human intervention at the vehicle's 5 current location and/or expected future location (e.g., based on the route being traversed by the vehicle 5).”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of a signaling unit for the purpose of notifying the driver that autonomous driving in a road section is not possible.
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose detecting that a road section to be driven by the vehicle has been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the vehicle based on stored route use data of the road section.
VanBlon teaches that a road section to be driven by the vehicle has been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the vehicle based on stored route use data of the road section (Paragraph 12 “The present application also recognizes that self-driving vehicles may be given exclusive access to certain roads or lanes so long as the vehicle is actually being driven on autopilot rather than being manually driven by a user. When such a lane or road is available for self-driving, the self-driving vehicle may be routed onto that road or lane whereas for manual driving the driver would be routed elsewhere. Data describing self-driving-only roads and lanes may be stored in an online mapping system or database so that a device may access the system or database to make route determinations based on whether the vehicle will be driven manually by a user or by the vehicle's autopilot.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of storing past history of the road section previously driven by the vehicle for the purpose of determining the suitability of the vehicle for autonomous driving operation.
As to claim 4 Enthaler discloses a driver assistance system wherein the operating mode detection unit is configured to detect that autonomous driving of the vehicle over the road section is not possible by carrying out communication with vehicle external communication devices(Paragraph 16, 34).
As to claim 5 Enthaler discloses a driver assistance system wherein the vehicle external communication devices are infrastructure devices or communication devices of other vehicles (Paragraph 34).
As to claim 6 Enthaler discloses a driver assistance system wherein the alert comprises generate acoustic signaling and/or visual signaling (Paragraph 17).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Xu (US 2020/0200558), and Iwai (US 2018/0023966) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Slusar (US 9,947,052)
As to claim 2 Slusar teaches a driver assistance system wherein the stored route use data of the road section include information about whether the road section has been exclusively autonomously driven on before and the operating mode detection unit is further configured to output the alert if the road section has been exclusively autonomously driven on before (Column 14 lines 58-Column 15 lines 1-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of determining whether or not the autonomous vehicle has been driven before for the purpose of determining if the road is suitable for autonomous driving.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu(US 2020/0200558) in view of Xu (US 2020/0200558)
As to claim 8 Xu discloses a method for operating a driver assistance system of a host vehicle, the method comprising:
accessing stored route-use data that comprise per-road-section records of the host vehicle (Paragraph 33 “The network apparatus is configured to generate the autonomous driving instructions for a geographic area based on current data for the geographic area. In various embodiments, current data comprises current and/or expected future traffic information/data for the geographic area, current and/or expected future incident information/data for the geographic area, current and/or expected future weather information/data, and/or the like.”);
determining, form the stored route-use-data, that a road section to be driven has been previously autonomously driven by the host vehicle (Paragraph 34 “For example, the historical autonomous driving patterns information/data may indicate routes, road segments, intersections, and/or the like through/within the geographic area that are commonly used by vehicles that are being autonomously driven (e.g., under the control of the corresponding vehicle apparatus); road segments, intersections, and/or the like that have previously proved difficult for vehicles that are being autonomously driven to maneuver, and/or the like.”);
Detecting that autonomous driving of the host vehicle over the road section is not currently possible(Paragraph 34 “For example, the historical autonomous driving patterns information/data may indicate routes, road segments, intersections, and/or the like through/within the geographic area that are commonly used by vehicles that are being autonomously driven (e.g., under the control of the corresponding vehicle apparatus); road segments, intersections, and/or the like that have previously proved difficult for vehicles that are being autonomously driven to maneuver, and/or the like.”);
And outputting to a driver of the host vehicle an alert indicating that autonomous driving of the host vehicle over the road section is not currently possible(Paragraph 70 “At block 406, a message is provided to the human operator indicating the status of autonomous driving. For example, the vehicle apparatus 20 may provide a message, indication, alert, and/or the like that is perceivable by the human operator of the vehicle 5.”);
Wherein the alert is output only when both (i) the road section is determined to have previously autonomously driven by the host vehicle based on the per-road records and (ii) autonomous driving of the host vehicle over the road section is detected as not currently possible (Paragraph 70 “At block 406, a message is provided to the human operator indicating the status of autonomous driving. For example, the vehicle apparatus 20 may provide a message, indication, alert, and/or the like that is perceivable by the human operator of the vehicle 5. For example, the vehicle apparatus 20 may comprise means, such as processor 22, memory 24, user interface 28, and/or the like, for providing a message, indication, alert, and/or the like that is perceivable by the human operator of the vehicle 5. For example, the message, indication, alert and/or the like may indicate the status of autonomous driving of the vehicle 5, the status of autonomous driving in a portion of the geographic zone that the vehicle 5 is located in and/or is expected to enter based on a route the vehicle 5 is traversing, an expected change in the status of autonomous driving of the vehicle 5, and/or other information/data regarding autonomous driving and/or the expected need for human intervention at the vehicle's 5 current location and/or expected future location (e.g., based on the route being traversed by the vehicle 5).”);
Enthaler does not explicitly disclose detecting that a road section to be driven by the vehicle has been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the vehicle based on stored route use data of the road section.
VanBlon teaches that a road section to be driven by the vehicle has been previously exclusively autonomously driven by the vehicle based on stored route use data of the road section (Paragraph 12 “The present application also recognizes that self-driving vehicles may be given exclusive access to certain roads or lanes so long as the vehicle is actually being driven on autopilot rather than being manually driven by a user. When such a lane or road is available for self-driving, the self-driving vehicle may be routed onto that road or lane whereas for manual driving the driver would be routed elsewhere. Data describing self-driving-only roads and lanes may be stored in an online mapping system or database so that a device may access the system or database to make route determinations based on whether the vehicle will be driven manually by a user or by the vehicle's autopilot.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of storing past history of the road section previously driven by the vehicle for the purpose of determining the suitability of the vehicle for autonomous driving operation.
Claims 3,15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Xu (US 2020/0200558), and Iwai (US 2018/0023966) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bonhomme (US 2016/0093210)
As to claim 3 Bonhomme teaches a driver assistance system wherein the stored route use data of the road section include a frequency of the autonomous driving of the road section by the vehicle and the operating mode detection unit is further configured to determine the road section has been previously driven by the vehicle when the frequency exceeding a frequency threshold (Paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of determining a frequency of use of the road section for the purpose of determining if the road is suitable for autonomous driving.
As to claim 15 Bonhomme teaches a driver assistance system wherein the operating mode detection unit is further configured to send the signal to the signaling unit when a frequency threshold is exceeded(Paragraph 29).
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 15.
Claim 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Xu (US 2020/0200558), and Iwai (US 2018/0023966) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Noh (US 2020/0183384)
As to claim 11 Noh teaches discloses a driver assistance system wherein detect that autonomous driving of the vehicle over the road section is not possible is based on an input signal from an infrastructure (Paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of determining that autonomous driving is not possible on the road section for the purpose of improving safety by preventing failure of the autonomous driving vehicle.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0200558) in view of Iwai (US 2018/0023966) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Noh (US 2020/0183384)
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Iwai (US 2018/0023966), and VanBlon (US 2019/0033870) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cho (US 2020/0207338)
As to claim 12 Cho a driver assistance system wherein the input signal is at least one of a communication from the infrastructure that there is a malfunction and the input signal is no communication from the infrastructure. (Paragraph 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of determining a communication error for the purpose of determining that autonomous driving is not possible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0200558) in view of Iwai (US 2018/0023966) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Cho (US 2020/0207338)
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 12.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enthaler (US 2018/0072315) in view of Iwai (US 2018/0023966), and VanBlon (US 2019/0033870) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Suzuki (US 10,311,718)
As to claim 13 Suzuki teaches a driver assistance system wherein input signal is a communication shown on a display of the infrastructure (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Enthaler to include the teachings of displaying information using the road infrastructure display for the purpose of notifying vehicles of upcoming traffic situations.
As to claim 14 Suzuki teaches a driver assistance system wherein the input signal is a failure of the display (Column 14 lines 19-39).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0200558) in view of Iwai (US 2018/0023966), and Noh (US 2020/0183384) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Suzuki (US 10,311,718)
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 13.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, 11-20 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
6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights