DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 10/17/2025. Claims 1-15 were previously canceled. Claims 16-31 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 07/25/2025, 09/24/2025, 10/22/2025, 11/11/2025, 12/10/2025, and 01/16/2026 are each in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 10/17/2025 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 17 is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant has argued that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. More specifically, applicant has argued that the previously cited prior art fails to teach to “determine from the environmental data that the driving function cannot be operated to account for the first signaling unit” because “Kloden expressly accounts for traffic signal color in operating the auto-drive function,” and determines that the auto-drive cannot satisfy some driving condition when taking the signal light color into consideration, and therefore does not teach a determination that the auto-drive function cannot be operated to account for the signaling unit.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the argued step encompasses identifying a signal light color and then determining that the driving function cannot be adequately operated to effect an appropriate response to the identified signal light color. Kloden ¶¶ 54-55 discloses such a process since it describes a determination that the vehicle cannot stop before the stop line or proceed through the intersection while considering the signal light color and while remaining within allowable tolerances.
Applicant has further argued that the previously cited prior art does not teach that “the driving function is operated without accounting for the first signaling unit when it is determined that the driving function cannot be operated to account for the first signaling unit” because in Kloden, the auto-drive function is “turned off via the driver being asked to take over. Thus it is not the case that the driving function is operated without accounting for the signaling unit.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Kloden ¶ 55 states that “If it is determined that, taking into account the respective tolerances, it is neither possible to stop before the stop line during the yellow signal nor to cross the stop line before the red phase, the driver is asked to take over. This is particularly necessary because a braking process with a braking deceleration that is higher than the braking deceleration permitted in automated driving mode is required.” While Kloden discloses asking the driver to take over, Kloden does not mention a step of shutting down automated driving. Based on this disclosure, it is implied that the vehicle would need to continue to perform some type of automated control, especially since the driver is “asked” to take over rather than being required to take over. Even if the driver successfully takes over driving control, the vehicle would have to either slow down, maintain speed, or increase speed until the driver takes over; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this is what is implied by the disclosure of Kloden, as it would be unnecessarily dangerous to completely turn off all the automated driving functions while approaching an intersection without confirming that the driver is able to take over driving.
The examiner additionally notes that ¶¶ 86-87 of the instant specification describe steps of outputting a display message to the driver “to inform the driver of the vehicle 100 that the signaling unit 200, 210 located ahead cannot be taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance” where “The task of the driver of the vehicle 100 is then to decelerate the vehicle 100 if necessary before the signaling unit 200, 210” and where “a takeover request (TOR) can be output to the driver of the vehicle 100 in order to prompt the driver to manually take over the longitudinal guidance of the vehicle 100.” This process is similar to the process described in Kloden ¶¶ 54-55 and further supports the position that Kloden teaches the argued limitations.
For the reasons explained above, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16, 20-27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueke et al. (US 2015/0232026 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lueke, in view of Klöden et al. (DE 102015218196 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kloden.
Regarding claim 16:
Lueke discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle system for providing a driving function for automated longitudinal guidance of a vehicle, comprising: a vehicle guidance system configured to: detect a first signaling unit which is arranged in front of the vehicle in a direction of travel on a road used by the vehicle based on environmental data of one or more environmental sensors of the vehicle.” (Lueke ¶ 2: “The position and location of a traffic light can be detected, for example, with a surroundings detection sensor, in particular a camera sensor system.” Further, Lueke ¶ 6 states that the invention is used to assist a driver “at a traffic light,” which implies that the traffic light is on the road in front of the vehicle.)
“determine driver data relating to attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle when monitoring the driving function as the vehicle approaches the first signaling unit.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “the driver assistance system comprises means for detecting the driver's state of attention. The driver's state of attention can be detected, for example, with a camera system in the interior of the vehicle. The camera system can also detect the driver's line of sight and can therefore, for example, establish whether or not the latter has the traffic light in his field of vision. In addition, conclusions can be made about the driver's state of attention by means of hands-off detection or by monitoring the driver's activities on the multimedia systems provided in the vehicle (e.g. surfing the internet).” Further, Lueke ¶ 12 discloses an example in which “a right turning lane is detected by means of arrows marked on the roadway of a lane with a camera system or with a navigation system. On driving into this right turning lane a warning signal is output, if the driver was not looking to the right before passing the traffic light, where a traffic light for vehicles turning right or a road sign which applies to vehicles turning right is typically located, for example, a green arrow for vehicles turning right.”)
“and operate the driving function as the vehicle approaches the first signaling unit based on the detection of the first signaling unit and the driver data.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal. Means are therefore provided for providing a visual, audible or haptic warning to the driver. Alternatively or in addition, an intervention is made in a longitudinal dynamics control process of the ego vehicle.” Additionally, Lueke -¶ 14: “In a preferred embodiment of the invention the signal for intervening in the longitudinal dynamics control process is configured in such a way that a current acceleration of the ego vehicle is increased or attenuated…”)
Lueke does not specifically disclose to “determine from the environmental data that the driving function cannot be operated to account for the first signaling unit” and “wherein the driving function is operated without accounting for the first signaling unit when it is determined that the driving function cannot be operated to account for the first signaling unit.” However, Kloden does teach these limitations. (Kloden ¶¶ 54-55: “Since the position of the stop line and the distance to the stop line are usually specified with an uncertainty, tolerances must be taken into account when determining the distance in the case of a yellow signal in a worst-case scenario. … If it is determined that, taking into account the respective tolerances, it is neither possible to stop before the stop line during the yellow signal nor to cross the stop line before the red phase, the driver is asked to take over.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lueke by taking appropriate driving measures based on a determination that the automatic driving system cannot account for the traffic signaling unit as taught by Kloden with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kloden ¶¶ 54-55 teach that continuing the automatic operation as usual regardless of the low confidence could result in the vehicle illegally stopping in the intersection or running through a red light; these paragraphs also teach that the driver is capable of performing harder braking than the automated system can do alone, which may be required to help the vehicle to stop in time.
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Lueke further teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine that the driving function makes or wishes to make a change to a driving behavior of the vehicle with respect to the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the first signaling unit; and output information relating to the change to the driving behavior to the driver of the vehicle on the basis of the driver data.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal. Means are therefore provided for providing a visual, audible or haptic warning to the driver. Alternatively or in addition, an intervention is made in a longitudinal dynamics control process of the ego vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 20,” and Lueke further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine, on the basis of the driver data, whether a degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function is greater than or less than an attentiveness threshold value.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “the driver assistance system comprises means for detecting the driver's state of attention. … If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal.” Categorizing a driver as being “inattentive” implies that an attentiveness metric is compared to a threshold.)
“and output the information relating to the change to the driving behavior to the driver of the vehicle, only when it is determined that the degree of attentiveness of the driver is less than the attentiveness threshold value.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal. Means are therefore provided for providing a visual, audible or haptic warning to the driver. Alternatively or in addition, an intervention is made in a longitudinal dynamics control process of the ego vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 22:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 20,” and Lueke further teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine, on the basis of the environmental data, that a color of a signal group of the first signaling unit has changed; and in response, determine that the driving function makes or wishes to make the change to the driving behavior of the vehicle with respect to the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the first signaling unit, in order to end or begin automated deceleration at the first signaling unit.” (Lueke Abstract: “The vehicle starts driving according to whether or not at least one traffic light is present, according to the color phase of the traffic light, and according to the driver's state of attention.” Further, Lueke ¶ 14: “the signal for intervening in the longitudinal dynamics control process is configured in such a way that a current acceleration of the ego vehicle is increased or attenuated or the ego vehicle is prevented from starting.”)
Regarding claim 23:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 20,” and Lueke additionally teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine, at a change time at which the first signaling unit is already taken into consideration during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle, that the driving function makes or wishes to make the change to a driving behavior of the vehicle; and determine driver data relating to a degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function at the change time.” (Lueke ¶¶ 14-16: “In a preferred embodiment of the invention the signal for intervening in the longitudinal dynamics control process is configured in such a way that a current acceleration of the ego vehicle is increased or attenuated or the ego vehicle is prevented from starting. … the vehicle is only started at a traffic light, in the event that the ego vehicle was prevented from starting, following clearance by the driver. This clearance is provided, in particular, by detecting an operation of an accelerator pedal.”)
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Lueke also teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine, on the basis of the environmental data, that the driving function should make a change to a driving behavior of the vehicle with respect to the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the first signaling unit; and automatically change the driving behavior of the vehicle on the basis of the driver data.” (Lueke Abstract: “The vehicle starts driving according to whether or not at least one traffic light is present, according to the color phase of the traffic light, and according to the driver's state of attention.”)
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 24,” and Lueke further teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine, on the basis of the driver data, whether a degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function is greater than or less than an attentiveness threshold value.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “the driver assistance system comprises means for detecting the driver's state of attention. … If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal.” Categorizing a driver as being “inattentive” implies that an attentiveness metric is compared to a threshold.)
“and automatically change the driving behavior only when it is determined that the degree of attentiveness of the driver is greater than the attentiveness threshold value.” (Lueke Abstract: “The vehicle starts driving according to whether or not at least one traffic light is present, according to the color phase of the traffic light, and according to the driver's state of attention.” Starting the vehicle reads on changing the driving behavior as claimed.)
Regarding claim 26:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Lueke also teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: effect deceleration and/or acceleration of the vehicle during the automated longitudinal guidance of the vehicle at the first signaling unit on the basis of the driver data.” (Lueke ¶ 7: “If an inattentive driver is detected, depending on the color phase of the traffic light, the control unit outputs a warning signal. Means are therefore provided for providing a visual, audible or haptic warning to the driver. Alternatively or in addition, an intervention is made in a longitudinal dynamics control process of the ego vehicle.” Also, Lueke ¶ 14: “the signal for intervening in the longitudinal dynamics control process is configured in such a way that a current acceleration of the ego vehicle is increased or attenuated or the ego vehicle is prevented from starting.”)
Regarding claim 27:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 26,” and Lueke further teaches “wherein the deceleration and/or acceleration is a temporal profile of the deceleration and/or acceleration.” (Lueke ¶ 14: “the signal for intervening in the longitudinal dynamics control process is configured in such a way that a current acceleration of the ego vehicle is increased or attenuated or the ego vehicle is prevented from starting.” Increasing or attenuating the acceleration over time teaches the use of a temporal profile for the deceleration and/or acceleration as claimed.)
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 16 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueke in view of Kloden as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gallagher et al. (US 2021/0401340 A1), hereinafter referred to as Migneco.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Kloden also teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: in response to determining that the driving function cannot be operated to account for the first signaling unit, output an unavailability indicator to the driver indicating the operation of the driving function without accounting for the first signaling unit.” (Kloden ¶ 55: “If it is determined that, taking into account the respective tolerances, it is neither possible to stop before the stop line during the yellow signal nor to cross the stop line before the red phase, the driver is asked to take over.” Asking the driver to take over control of the vehicle implies the use of an output notification that reads on the “unavailability indicator” as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Lueke by notifying the driver when the traffic light cannot be accounted for as taught by Kloden with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kloden ¶ 55 teaches that the driver can be asked to take over driving to compensate for the traffic light not being accounted for by the automatic driving system, and that the driver is capable of performing harder braking than the automated system, which may be required for the vehicle to stop in time.
The combination of Lueke and Kloden does not explicitly teach “wherein the unavailability indicator depends on a degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function, as indicated by the driver data.” However, Migneco does teach this limitation. (Migneco ¶ 23: “The controller 102 may build a library of stimulus responses and attentiveness responses over time and trigger the alert that is determined to gain the most desired stimulus response and attentive state and generate such alerts in moments when the vehicle is about to enter into a state of duress. In this case, the controller 102 may (i) control the display 121 to provide a visual alert, (ii) control audio system 106 to provide an audible (or audio based alert) alert, and/or (iii) control the tactile feedback device to provide a tactile feedback device 109, and/or (iv) transmit a control signal to the wearable device to the driver to provide the alert (e.g., visual, audio, or tactile) based on the stimulus response and the attentiveness level.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Lueke and Kloden by outputting a certain type of alert based on the attentiveness level of the driver as taught by Migneco with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Migneco ¶ 13 teaches that this modification can help to provide personalized alerts to improve alert effectiveness and counteract a situation where a driver adapts to certain types of alerts while staying inattentive.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lueke in view of Kloden as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Gallagher et al. (US 2019/0332902 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gallagher.
Regarding claim 29:
The combination of Lueke and Kloden teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 26,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: determine a time of a beginning of automated deceleration and/or a deceleration value of the automated deceleration of the vehicle at the first signaling unit on the basis of the driver data.” However, Gallagher does teach this limitation. (Gallagher ¶ 38: “If the distraction status of the driver is quantified, the vehicle can change reaction times of the collision avoidance system, e.g., the adaptive braking system, to optimize the response of the system itself in view of the driver condition as at least partly determined by the distraction level.” Also, Gallagher ¶ 48: “The laser sensing system 112 can perform laser scanning to produce a representation around the vehicle. The external environment can include other vehicles, signs, animals, people, and other objects. The representation or individually identified objects can be provided to the controller 102 for use in the vehicle as described herein.” This at least teaches to determine a time of a beginning of automated deceleration as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 29, consistent with the instant specification, the step to “determine a time of a beginning of automated deceleration and/or a deceleration value of the automated deceleration” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “time of a beginning of automated deceleration” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Lueke and Kloden by updating reaction times of the collision avoidance system based on the distraction status of the driver as taught by Gallagher with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gallagher ¶ 71 teaches that this can help to optimize the response of the system and reduce the risk of collisions.
Regarding claim 30:
The combination of Lueke, Kloden, and Gallagher teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 29,” and Gallagher also teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to determine the time and/or the deceleration value on the basis of the driver data in such a manner that: the time is shifted … in terms of time with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function; and/or the deceleration value is increased with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function.” (Gallagher ¶ 38: “If the distraction status of the driver is quantified, the vehicle can change reaction times of the collision avoidance system, e.g., the adaptive braking system, to optimize the response of the system itself in view of the driver condition as at least partly determined by the distraction level.” This teaches to determine the time such that the time is shifted in terms of time with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Lueke and Kloden by updating reaction times of the collision avoidance system based on the distraction status of the driver as taught by Gallagher with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Gallagher ¶ 71 teaches that this can help to optimize the response of the system and reduce the risk of collisions.
Although Gallagher does not explicitly disclose that “the time is shifted further back in terms of time,” it would have been obvious to try this option from the finite number (i.e., 2) of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(e)). Gallagher ¶ 2 explains that before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there was a recognized problem in the art of people driving vehicles in a poor state, leading to driver errors and potentially preventable road accidents. Gallagher ¶ 38 also states that the vehicle reaction time can be shifted based on driver distractedness. This encompasses two different solutions: 1) shifting the time forward so that the vehicle reacts sooner than usual and 2) shifting the time backward so that the vehicle reacts later than usual. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued either of these potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art may have chosen option 2 because shifting the time back could improve driver comfort, and would not significantly hinder driving safety if the driver was paying attention and could act as a reliable failsafe for the system.
Note that under the BRI of claim 30, consistent with the instant specification, the step to “determine the time and/or the deceleration value on the basis of the driver data in such a manner that: the time is shifted further back in terms of time with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function; and/or the deceleration value is increased with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only determining the time such that “the time is shifted further back in terms of time with an increasing degree of attentiveness of the driver when monitoring the driving function” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662