DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 04/21/2026. Claims 1-15 were previously canceled. Claims 16-31 are pending and are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 03/09/2026 and 06/12/2026 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
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 Adiprasito et al. (WO2019/170478A1), hereinafter referred to as Adiprasito.
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 consider the first signaling unit” and “wherein the driving function is operated without considering the first signaling unit when it is determined that the driving function cannot be operated to consider the first signaling unit.” However, Adiprasito does teach these limitations. (Adiprasito ¶ 33: “The control unit may be configured to determine that the signal transmitter relevant to the planned direction of travel of the vehicle cannot be identified with sufficient reliability. … in this case, a request regarding the automated execution of the driving function can be issued to the driver of the vehicle. In response to appropriate feedback from the driver, the driving function can then be executed automatically.”)
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 operating the vehicle without considering the first signaling unit when the first signaling unit cannot be reliably detected as taught by Adiprasito with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Adiprasito ¶ 90 teaches that this can help with “increasing the reliability, availability and comfort of a driving function, in particular a driver assistance system, of a vehicle in connection with a signaling or Traffic light system.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that even if an automated vehicle cannot reliably detect a traffic signal, the vehicle still needs to operate in some way without the benefit of the traffic signal detection, whether that involves stopping the vehicle, continuing automated driving, or relying on the driver to help operate the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20:
The combination of Lueke and Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 20,” and Lueke also 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Lueke additionally 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 Adiprasito teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 26,” and Lueke additionally 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 16,” and Adiprasito further teaches “wherein the vehicle guidance system is configured to: in response to determining that the driving function cannot be operated to consider the first signaling unit, output an unavailability indicator to the driver indicating the operation of the driving function without considering the first signaling unit.” (Adiprasito ¶ 33: “The control unit may be configured to determine that the signal transmitter relevant to the planned direction of travel of the vehicle cannot be identified with sufficient reliability. … in this case, a request regarding the automated execution of the driving function can be issued to the driver of the vehicle. In response to appropriate feedback from the driver, the driving function can then be executed automatically.” The issued “request” 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 issuing a request to the driver when a traffic signal cannot be reliably detected as taught by Adiprasito with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art may have been motivated to do this because Adiprasito ¶ 90 teaches that this modification help with “increasing the reliability, availability and comfort of a driving function, in particular a driver assistance system, of a vehicle in connection with a signaling or Traffic light system.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that keeping the driver informed regarding the current driving situation could help to improve driver comfort and trust in the vehicle.
The combination of Lueke and Adiprasito does not specifically 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 Adiprasito 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 since 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 Adiprasito 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 Adiprasito 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 that is disclosed by the combination of Lueke and Adiprasito by updating the 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, Adiprasito, and Gallagher teaches “The vehicle system according to claim 29,” and Gallagher further 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 that is disclosed by the combination of Lueke and Adiprasito by updating the 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
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
Prosecution Insights