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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 1/13/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below. To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18-20, 22, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3036144B1 Siegel et al ("Siegel", previously cited, machine translation provided) in view of US20200122694A1 ("Eigel") .
As per claim 14 and 26, Siegel teaches the limitations of the controller and method:
A controller for changing between a first configuration and a second configuration of at least one active safety system of an automated motor vehicle, wherein the controller is configured: to recognize a change in an operating mode of the automated motor vehicle from an at least highly automated operating mode into an at most partially automated operating mode (Siegel at least [0008-0009]: “forecast data…fully automatic operation…partially controlled…depending on the current distribution of the vehicle control tasks”, [0022], [0035]), and to change the at least one active safety system from the first configuration to the second configuration when the change is recognized (Siegel at least [0019-0022]).
Siegel does not disclose:
wherein a reaction of the at least one active safety system in the second configuration is triggered at an earlier point in time than a point in time at which a reaction in the first configuration of the at least one active safety system would have been triggered, and wherein the reaction of the at least one active safety system in the second configuration is triggered with a lower intensity than an intensity at which the reaction in the first configuration of the at least one active safety system would have been triggered.
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitations (Eigel at least the abstract: “According to a first functionality, the driving assistance system causes emergency braking to bring the transportation vehicle to a standstill to avoid a collision. According to a second functionality, the driving assistance system causes a longitudinal control intervention that is reduced compared to the emergency braking to slow down the transportation vehicle once the obstacle is detected”, [0016]: “The driving assistance system may be set up to automatically switch from the second functionality to the first functionality if the transportation vehicle has approached the detected obstacle to such an extent that the emergency braking intervention is necessary to avoid the collision. In doing so, a relative spatial arrangement and speed between the transportation vehicle and the obstacle as well as a reaction of the driver can be automatically monitored by the driving assistance system, evaluated and taken into account for control or activation of the transportation vehicle.”, [0029]: “due to the takeover request it can be particularly reliably achieved that the driver takes over manual supervision or control of the transportation vehicle in corresponding situations in which an actual or potential obstacle has been recognized, which can mean improved safety in the management of the transportation vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siegel with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eigel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety (Eigel [0029]).
As per claim 15, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
wherein the at most partially automated operating mode is an operating mode without automation. (Siegel at least [0008])
As per claim 18, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
wherein: the at least one active safety system is configured to trigger at least two different reactions dependent on a configuration of the respective active safety system, and a triggering point in time and/or an intensity of at least one of the reactions in the second configuration differs from a triggering point in time and/or an intensity of at least one of the reactions in the first configuration. (Siegel at least [0013], [0019-0022])
As per claim 19, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
to determine a point in time after the change of the at least one active safety system from the first configuration to the second configuration, and to change the at least one active safety system from the second configuration to the first configuration depending on the point in time. (Siegel at least [0022]: “time window…automation sequence can already be known in advance”, [0039]) *Examiner’s note: here Siegel can forecast the change in driving modes switching back and forth between automatic (with the first configuration) and manual (with the second configuration).
As per claim 20, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured: to ascertain an influencing variable, and to determine the point in time depending on the influencing variable. (Siegel at least [0022]) *Examiner’s note: here the influencing variable is at least the proximity to the intersection which influences the switchover from auto to manual.
As per claim 22, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
the automated motor vehicle comprises at least two active safety systems, and the controller is further configured to change at least one subset of the at least two active safety systems from the first configuration to the second configuration when the change in the operating mode of the automated motor vehicle is recognized. (Siegel at least [0019-0022], [0023]: “ACC system…LKS”)
As per claim 25, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel additionally teaches:
the at most partially automated operating mode is an assisted operating mode in which either a longitudinal control or a lateral control of the motor vehicle continues to be affected in an automated manner (Siegel at least [0032], ACC or LKS are active)
Although Siegel does not explicitly disclose: the controller is further configured to change at least one active safety system for the longitudinal control or the lateral control that is no longer affected in an automated manner from the first configuration to the second configuration when the change is recognized, Siegel does teach forecasting and changing the automation level based on navigational moves ahead in time (Siegel at least [0022]). Based on Siegel also teaching changing the configuration between at least two configurations of a safety system based on levels of automation (Siegel at least [0019-0022]) the system taught by Siegel would be at least capable of changing the configuration of an active safety system that is not active (according to the navigational plan forecasting) if the safety system will be known to be needed and active in a later point in time ahead. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify and/or implement the teachings of Siegel to improve the forecasting of an automation level switching.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel and Eigel in view of US20190382018A1 Garnault et al ("Garnault").
Regarding claim 21, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel does not disclose:
the controller is further configured: to ascertain an influencing variable, and to alter the second configuration of the at least one active safety system depending on the influencing variable when the change in the operating mode of the automated motor vehicle is recognized.
However, Garnault teaches the aforementioned limitation (Garnault at least [0002]: "when to enable or disable a safety routine…degree of traffic congestion around the vehicle").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siegel with the aforementioned limitations taught by Garnault with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve automatic driving in congestion.
Claim(s) 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siegel and Eigel in view of US20160325757A1 Westlund et al ("Westlund").
Regarding claim 23, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel does not disclose:
the controller is further configured: to determine a variable that is characteristic of a readiness for driving of a driver of the automated motor vehicle, and to alter the second configuration of the at least one active safety system depending on the variable that is characteristic of the readiness for driving of the driver of the automated motor vehicle when the change in the operating mode of the automated motor vehicle is recognized.
However, Westlund teaches the aforementioned limitation (Westlund at least the abstract: "first switch…steering wheel…second switch…pedal is depressed…"). *Examiner’s note: Westlund teaches switching of modes depending on the operators readiness to take over which is indicated by steering wheel gripping and/or pedal activation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siegel with the aforementioned limitations taught by Westlund with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve transitions between driving modes (Westlund [0008]).
Regarding claim 24, Siegel in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Siegel does not disclose:
the variable that is characteristic of the readiness for driving of the driver of the automated motor vehicle is characteristic of a readiness for driving with regard to a longitudinal and/or a lateral control of the automated motor vehicle.
However, Westlund teaches the aforementioned limitation (Westlund at least [0019]: "ensured that the driver has both his/her hands in a position suitable for operating the vehicle").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Siegel with the aforementioned limitations taught by Westlund with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve transitions between driving modes (Westlund [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669