DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are pending in this application. The list of claims examined in this office action comprises the list included in the claim set filed 06/10/2026, in which:
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 and 13 has/have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 14, 15 and 20 has/have been filed as previously presented.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 16-19 has/have been filed as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/10/2026; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the objection(s) of claim(s) 11, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the objection(s) of claim(s) 11 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to the amendment to independent claims 1 and 11 reciting: "and wherein when the minimal risk maneuver is not performed within a predetermined execution time based on the determined minimal risk maneuver type, the determined minimal risk maneuver type is transitioned to another minimal risk maneuver type which can be performed within the predetermined execution time," the Examiner asserts that the above claim limitation comprises new matter not present in the Applicant's specification.
In particular, the key distinction between the above claim limitation and paragraph 0154 of the Applicant's specification, is the specification discloses comparing the expected time to complete a predetermined minimal risk maneuver to a predetermined execution time, before the maneuver takes place: "If the MRM cannot be performed." However, the Applicant's claimed invention recites determining if the determined MRM has been performed (past tense comparatively) and transitioning to another minimal risk maneuver after determining that a maneuver that has been started has not yet been completed within the predetermined execution time, which is a key distinction. As a result, the Examiner asserted that all of pending claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for possessing new matter.
Claim(s) 4-10 and 14-20 is/are further rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
You et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0142244 A1) discloses: An apparatus and method for managing failure in an autonomous navigation system are provided. The method includes collecting, by a controller, failure information in the autonomous navigation system and a monitoring a driver condition. The controller is configured to collect the failure information in the autonomous navigation system, and determine whether to switch control from the autonomous navigation vehicle to a manual driving mode based on the driver condition.
Bretzizgheimger (United States Patent Publication 2016/0311416 A1) discloses: A method in which the driving behavior of a vehicle is influenced depending on surroundings data in order to support an evasive maneuver as soon as a risk of collision is detected using the data from surroundings sensors and vehicle sensors. The vehicle has an electronically regulated braking system which allows a driver-independent build-up and a modulation of the braking forces on the individual wheels of the vehicle, and a steering input by the drive is supported in the event of a detected risk of collision by a driver-independent braking intervention. A brake slip of at least one wheel of the vehicle is limited to a first slip threshold in a first phase of the evasive maneuver and to a second slip threshold in a second phase of the evasive maneuver, wherein the first slip threshold is smaller than the second slip threshold. The invention further relates to an electronic controller.
Schroeder et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0291560 A1) discloses: A method for operating a vehicle, the vehicle being guided in fully automated fashion, and if an error is detected during the fully automated guidance, a safe state being selected from a plurality of safe states as a function of one parameter, the vehicle being guided in fully automated fashion into the selected safe state. Also described is an apparatus for operating a vehicle, as well as to a computer program.
BONARENS et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0327111 A1) discloses: A driver assistance system for avoiding collisions includes an environmental sensor for detecting the traffic environment of the vehicle and a processing unit configured to assess the traffic environment as to the likelihood of a danger and plan a route avoiding or at least minimizing the danger for the vehicle. The processing unit is further configured to predict a possible control intervention of the driver in reaction to the danger and select a route which is compatible with that control intervention.
Odate (United States Patent Publication 2019/0061811 A1) discloses: A driving support device may include, but is not limited to: a plurality of sensors is configured to detect state quantities relating to steering of a vehicle; a determiner is configured to determine whether each of the plurality of sensors is normal or abnormal; and a controller controlling execution of driving support functions for supporting a driving operation for the vehicle, in which the controller is configured to determine a control state of an executable driving support function on the basis of a result of the determination of the determiner.
HAN et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0126872 A1) discloses: An example method for safely controlling a vehicle includes selecting, based on a first control command from a first vehicle control unit, an operating mode of the vehicle, and transmitting, based on the selecting, the operating mode to an autonomous driving system, wherein the first control command is generated based on input from a first plurality of sensors, and wherein the operating mode corresponds to one of (a) a default operating mode, (b) a minimal risk condition mode of a first type that configures the vehicle to pull over to a nearest pre-designated safety location, (c) a minimal risk condition mode of a second type that configures the vehicle to immediately stop in a current lane, or (d) a minimal risk condition mode of a third type that configures the vehicle to come to a gentle stop.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights