DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-19 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 11/12/2025.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 11/12/2025. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
To begin, the Applicant asserts that Schoenherr teaches only a single steering angle limit state during the learning (teaching) mode and therefore fails to disclose the claimed unlimited state in which the steering angle limit corresponds to a system-related maximum possible steering angle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Schoenherr discloses a learning phase that is selectively activated by the driver, during which the steering wheel angle that can be set by the driver is limited to a predefined value smaller than the maximum possible steering angle of the vehicle (see Schoenherr ¶¶ [0007], [0013]). Schoenherr further discloses that outside of this learning phase the steering wheel angle is no longer limited and corresponds to the system-related maximum possible steering angle (see Schoenherr ¶¶ [0008], [0014]). Thus, the teaching mode includes at least two steering angle limit states: (1) an unlimited state corresponding to the system-related maximum possible steering angle when no limitation is applied, and (2) a limited state in which the steering angle is constrained to a value smaller than the system-related maximum. Accordingly, the Examiner finds Schoenherr teaches the claimed steering angle limit having at least two states.
Applicant further argues that Fuchs, in view of Schoenherr, fails to teach determining a requirement for a steering angle limit depending on a current driving situation and selectively adjusting the steering angle limit of the motor vehicle. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Schoenherr discloses selectively limiting the steering angle during a learning phase in which the vehicle is manually driven by the driver in order to support reliable capture of a driven trajectory, while also being capable of removing the limitation outside of that phase (see Schoenherr ¶¶ [0007], [0008], [0013], [0014]). The decision to impose or remove the steering angle limit is dependent on the current driving situation and operational context, namely whether the vehicle is being manually driven in a learning maneuver. Moreover, Fuchs teaches adapting vehicle control parameters based on detected driving or operational conditions in order to support driver assistance and system learning functions. When considered together, Fuchs and Schoenherr teach or at least fairly suggest determining whether a steering angle limitation is required based on the current driving situation and selectively adjusting the steering angle limit in response thereto, as broadly recited in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs et al. DE102018117718A1 (hereinafter, Fuchs), in view of Schoenherr DE102014220144A1 (hereinafter, Schoenherr).
Regarding Claim 1, Fuchs describes a method for operating a motor vehicle (operating a motor vehicle, Fuchs, Page 2), comprising:
-operating the motor vehicle in a teaching mode in which a driver can drive and thereby teach a trajectory by manually driving the motor vehicle (operating the vehicle in a teaching mode, wherein the driver can teach a trajectory (i.e., path), Fuchs, Page 2);
-operating the motor vehicle in a following mode in which the motor vehicle at least semi-autonomously follows the trajectory or an adapted variant thereof (operating the motor vehicle in a following mode, wherein the vehicle operates semi-autonomously to follow the trajectory (i.e., path), Fuchs, Page 2); wherein, in the teaching mode … angle limit of the motor vehicle is selectively adjustable depending on a driving situation (in teaching mode (i.e., learning) the angle limit of the motor vehicle can be set to a desired parameter (i.e., selectively adjustable), Fuchs, Pages 2 and 3)…
Fuchs does not specifically disclose the method to include in the teaching mode during manually driving the motor vehicle by the driver; determining a requirement for a steering angle limit depending on a current driving situation; and based on the determined requirement, selectively adjusting the, steering angle limit of the motor vehicle wherein the steering angle limit in the teaching mode during manually driving the motor vehicle by the driver has at least two states, comprising an unlimited state and a limited state; in the unlimited state, the steering angle limit corresponds to a system-related maximum possible steering angle; and wherein in the limited state, the steering angle limit is smaller than the system-related maximum possible steering angle.
Schoenherr discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Schoenherr describes a vehicle system wherein the steering angle can be limited during a manual operation of the vehicle and when the vehicle is in a learning phase (Schoenherr, Paragraphs 0007 and 0013). Moreover, Schoenheer describes the vehicle system also having a non-limited steering angle state for which the steering angle is not limited (Schoenheer, Paragraphs 0008 and 0014).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Fuchs to include that in the teaching mode during manually driving the motor vehicle by the driver; determining a requirement for a steering angle limit depending on a current driving situation; and based on the determined requirement, selectively adjusting the, steering angle limit of the motor vehicle wherein the steering angle limit in the teaching mode during manually driving the motor vehicle by the driver has at least two states, comprising an unlimited state and a limited state; in the unlimited state, the steering angle limit corresponds to a system-related maximum possible steering angle; and wherein in the limited state, the steering angle limit is smaller than the system-related maximum possible steering angle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Schoenheer.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because limiting the steering angle of a vehicle can help the vehicle control deviations, thus operate the vehicle in a safer manner (Schoenheer, Paragraph 0005).
Regarding Claim 2, Fuchs describes the method of claim 1, comprising detecting a driving situation using at least one of the following:
-an environmental sensor system of the motor vehicle (environment sensors);
…
-a computer-implemented model that is configured to ascertain a determination of the steering angle limit (vehicle can monitor and implement a steering angle limit, Fuchs, Pages 2 and 3); and
-a computer-implemented method for evaluating and/or classifying the driving situation (vehicle capable of evaluating the driving situation, Fuchs, Pages 2-4).
Fuchs does not specifically disclose the method to include a communication system of the motor vehicle that is configured to communicate with at least one vehicle-external unit; and the map information that describes an environment of the vehicle.
Schoenherr discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Schoenherr describes a communication link with an external unit (Schoenherr, Page 2). Moreover, Schoenherr describes a map information that describes an environment of the vehicle (Schoenherr, Page 3).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Fuchs to include a communication system of the motor vehicle that is configured to communicate with at least one vehicle-external unit; and the map information that describes an environment of the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Schoenherr.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a vehicle which can communicate with outside sources and have map information allows for the vehicle to help in operating the vehicle (Schoenherr, Page 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the steering angle limit is fixed at a reduced value or set to a predetermined value below a maximum possible steering angle if the driving situation corresponds to maneuvering while not maintaining a minimum distance to interfering contours in an environment of the motor vehicle (vehicle can monitor and implement a steering angle limit based on a plurality of factors such as object avoidance and speed of the vehicle, Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, wherein the steering angle limit is fixed at a greater value or held at a predetermined value when the driving situation corresponds to maneuvering at a minimum distance to interfering contours in an environment of the motor vehicle (vehicle can monitor and implement a steering angle limit based on a plurality of factors such as object avoidance, speed of the vehicle, and minimum distance to interfered with environment (e.g., parking), Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 5, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 1, comprising adapting the trajectory at least partially before following in order to generate the adapted variant (adapting trajectory, Fuchs, Pages 2-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 5, wherein the adaptation comprises increasing at least one curve radius of the trajectory (adapting trajectory, which is a curve radius, Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 7, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 5, wherein the adaptation comprises shifting at least one steering-in point to a front, and/or shifting at least one steering-out point to the rear (adapting trajectory, which is a curve radius, which can be shifting the front steering point, Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 8, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 5, comprising adapting the trajectory taking into account environmental information detected in teaching mode (adapting trajectory, based on environmental information determined in learning mode, Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 9, Fuchs, as modified, describes the method of claim 8, wherein maximum permissible adaptations to the trajectory are defined by using the environmental information (adapting trajectory, based on environmental information, Fuchs, Pages 2-5).
Regarding Claim 10, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights