Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 5/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 14-15, 18-26 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20210171066A1 (“Koehler”).
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, 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210171066A1 (“Koehler”) in view of US20200122694A1 Eigel (previously cited).
As per claims 14 and 26, Koehler teaches:
A controller for changing between a first configuration and a second configuration of at least one active safety system of an automated motor vehicle (Koehler at least the abstract)
change the at least one active safety system from the first configuration to the second configuration in response to the change in the operating mode being recognized, 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. (Koehler at least the abstract, [0006-0007])
Koehler does not disclose:
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
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eigel at least [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koehler 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 and provide a manually or partially automated driving means for vehicle occupants.
As per claim 15, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler does not disclose:
the at most partially automated operating mode is an operating mode without automation (Eigel at least [0022])
As per claim 18, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler additionally teaches:
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. (Koehler at least [0006-0007])
As per claim 19, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler 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. (Koehler at least [0033])
As per claim 20, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler additionally teaches:
to ascertain an influencing variable, and to determine the point in time depending on the influencing variable. (Koehler at least [0033])
As per claim 21, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler additionally teaches:
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. (Koehler at least [0033])
As per claim 22, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler 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. (Koehler at least [0010]: “automatic steering maneuvers, acceleration and/or deceleration maneuvers may be configured accordingly differently and be carried out by the vehicle in an automated manner.”)
As per claim 23, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler does not disclose:
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.
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eigel at least [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koehler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eigel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 14.
As per claim 24, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler 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.
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eigel at least [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koehler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eigel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 14.
As per claim 25, Koehler in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Koehler does not disclose:
the at most partially automated operating mode is an assisted operating mode in which either a longitudinal controller or a lateral control of the motor vehicle continues to be affected in an automated manner, and 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.
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eigel at least the abstract: “driving assistance system causes a longitudinal control intervention that is reduced ”, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Koehler with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eigel with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 14.
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 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
Prosecution Insights