DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Prior arts cited in this office action:
Pohl (US 20190050655 A1, hereinafter “Pohl”)
Rieth et al. (20030067215 A1, hereinafter “Rieth”)
Huth et al. (US 20130245894 A1, hereinafter “Huth”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on 11/24/2025 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: applicant argues that The Office Action alleges Pohl teaches a system that determines the position of the pedal. This is factually incorrect. Pohl's system is based entirely on determining the position and movement of the driver's foot (termed the "control actuator" or "pedal actuator") relative to the pedal (termed the "control").
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior art does not teach or suggest applicant’s invention as claimed and argued above. Examiner believes the interpretation of the claim and the reference is misconstrued by the applicant. Pohl clearly teaches determining the position to the pedal and the position of the pedal relative to the camera 103 and the position of the pedal relative to the driver’s food 104 (conceded by applicant ). Contrary to applicant assertion, regardless of what the goal is the position of the pedal or the pedals are determined.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks: It is clear that, contrary to claim 1, Pohl does not
control an actuator based on the current position of the pedal relative to a fixed structure etc., but instead controls the brakes based on the position of a user's foot, shoe, or other appendage of a user.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior art does not teach or suggest applicant invention as claimed specifically as argued above. Applicant reiterates Pohl by disclosing “If it is detected that the foot ("control actuator") moves towards the brake pedal ("control") and the movement exceeds a certain predetermined threshold, the safety mode may be initiated and the braking system engaged. As stated in that paragraph "This permits engagement of the braking system before depression of the braking pedal and thereby permits additional braking time Thus, the brake pedal is not even moved when the braking action is initiated.” By the statement alone one can see that the application of the preemptive break is done by determining the movement of the foot in relation to the position of the pedal. In other words, regardless of where the food it if it is not in relation to the position of the pedal nothing happens. Therefore, contrary to applicant interpretation the control is perform based on the position of the pedal.
Applicant Arguments/Remarks: Second, the proposed combination does not arrive at the claimed invention because the fundamental purpose of the prior art systems is different from ours. Pohl discloses a supplementary safety override system designed only to detect an emergency "trigger action" and engage a "safety mode". It is not a system for the primary, continuous control of the vehicle.
The present application describes a system that, in contrast, is a primary control system that uses a single camera to replace the individual electronic sensors for all pedals (accelerator, brake, etc.) during normal driving. There is no teaching or suggestion in Pohl or Rieth to use a camera to determine the precise position of the accelerator pedal to modulate for example engine power, as this is outside the scope of their emergency-braking focus.
Examiner’s Response: examiner disagrees with applicant assertion above that the combination of the cited prior art does not teach or suggest applicant invention as claimed specifically as argued above. Regardless of the purpose of the invention as long as the combination of the cited prior art met the limitations as claim the invention cannot be allowable. Applicant is also reminded that an inventive concept can be applicable to many different situations even situations not intended or foreseeing by the applicant. Therefore, applicant argument here has no merit. Furthermore, Pohl clearly teaches determining the position of the pedals relative to the camera (fixed) and relative to the driver’s foot (Pohl [0031]) and performs control such as applying the break when determine to be applicable. While Pohl does not teach moving the pedal itself, Rieth on the other hand teaches a sensor 10 describes the action of the foot on the pedal, and an appropriate brake pressure can be set automatically in the brake system
depending on the path traveled by the pedal B or the pedal speed (dot over (B)) or the pedal acceleration (umlaut over (B)) (Rieth [0028]-[0029]). In other words, the distance or the position of the pedal in relation to the splashboard (1) determine the brake pressure or control to the applied which exactly when applicant is claiming.
Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case controlling the brake or the accelerator based on the position of he corresponding pedal in the relation to a fixe structure such the floor or the splashboard.
For the reason given above, examiner maintains the combination of the cited prior arts teaches or suggests applicant invention as claimed.
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.
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 1-8, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohl (US 20190050655 A1, hereinafter “Pohl”) in view of Rieth et al. (20030067215 A1, hereinafter “Rieth”).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14-16:
Pohl teaches a system for controlling actuators based on pedal positions in a vehicle (Pohl Abstract [0022], [0031], where Pohl teaches Herein is disclosed an image-based detection system comprising, one or more image sensors, configured to receive images of a vicinity of a control; and one or more processors, configured to identify within the images a control actuator and the control; detect a trigger action of the control actuator relative to the control based on the images; and switch from a normal control mode to a safety mode according to the detected trigger action) comprising: -
A control unit (Pohl [0020]-[0021], where Pohl teaches the term “processor” or “controller” as, for example, used herein may be understood as any kind of entity that allows handling data, signals, etc. The data, signals, etc. may be handled according to one or more specific functions executed by the processor or controller),
A camera configured to capture an image containing two or more pedals in a vehicle and to provide the image to the control unit (Pohl [0030], where Pohl teaches the one or more image sensors 103 may be configured to obtain depth information related to at least one of the brake pedals 101, the accelerator pedal 102, and a pedal actuator 104. Such depth-sensing image sensors may include cameras specifically equipped for depth determination. Alternatively, non-depth-sensing cameras may be used, wherein a plurality of cameras are present and obtain images of overlapping subjects from a plurality of perspectives, and wherein data from said cameras is transmitted to one or more processors for depth analysis), wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine for each pedal, based on the provided image, the current position of the pedal relative to a fixed structure in the vehicle or relative to a reference position of the pedal (Pohl [0031], [0052], where Pohl teaches In FIG. 2, the one or more image sensors 103 have a lateral view of the control (brake pedal) 101, a second control (accelerator pedal) 102, and the pedal actuator 104. Where the one or more image sensors 103 are fixedly mounted within the driver well, the one or more processors may be preconfigured with a distance measurement between the one or more image sensors 103 and the control (brake pedal) 101 and/or the one or more image sensors 103 and the second control (accelerator pedal) 102. Where such preprogrammed data is available, the one or more processors may receive data from the one or more image sensors 103 and thereby monitor a position of the control actuator 104 with respect to one or more pedals in the driver well. For example, the distance indicated by 201 corresponds to the distance between the one or more image sensors 103 and the accelerator pedal 102. The distance indicated by 202 corresponds to the distance between the one or more image sensors 103 and the control (brake pedal) 101. These may be calculated by the one or more processors processing data from the one or more image sensors, or they may be preprogramed distances), and
control, based on the determined position, a mode associated with the pedal (Pohl [0034]-[0036], where Pohl teaches Depending on a preset function within the one or more processors, the control actuator moving away from a braking pedal may indicate that braking within the immediate future is unnecessary or unlikely, and a subsequent entry into a safety mode may be undesirable. As will be described, a control actuator hovering over a control, or a control actuator moving toward the control may indicate that a safety mode is desirable. That is to say, a trigger action, which is an action that may cause initiation of a safety mode, may be a control actuator within a predetermined distance of a control, moving toward a pedal, or hovering above the pedal. These motions or actions may be further qualified to meet certain predetermined criteria such as threshold distances, durations, velocities, or accelerations to qualify as a trigger action. For examples, where a trigger action comprises hovering over a control, the trigger action may include additional factors such as a distance from the control in which the control actuator is hovering, and a duration of the hovering).
Pohl fails to explicitly teaches controlling the actuator directly. However, Pohl teaches using processor unit to control whether to operate the vehicle in safety mode or not based on the position of the pedals with regard to each other, the camera or the actuator (Pohl [0033]-[0036], [0039], figs. 1-2 and 8). And Rieth teaches a sensor 10 describes the action of the foot on the pedal, and an appropriate brake pressure can be set automatically in the brake system depending on the path traveled by the pedal B or the pedal speed {dot over (B)} or the pedal acceleration {umlaut over (B)}. Since, in the present invention, the brake already is actuated in a suitable manner as soon as the foot 9 approaches the pedal 4, the brake system according to the present invention is outstandingly suitable for determining the brake pressure with the aid of a force sensor when the foot touches the pedal. Since the brake already has automatically overcome the customary idle path before the foot 9 touches the pedal 4, the foot depresses the pedal only negligibly small distances, whereas the brake pressure in the brake system is almost exclusively determined by the force exerted by the driver's foot. (Rieth [0028]-[0029]).
Therefore, taking the teaching of Pohl and Rieth as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to control and actuator based on the pedal position to decide on the speed of the vehicle, in order to allow the vehicle to operate at a safe speed or not based on each pedal position.
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein, for each pedal, the control unit is configured to:
detect in the provided image one or more predefined points on the pedal,
determine the position(s) of the detected one or more predefined points in the provided image, and - calculate, based on the determined position(s) of the one or more detected predefined points, the position of each pedal relative to the fixed structure or relative to its reference position (Pohl [0031], [0052],Rieth [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein the camera is configured to capture and provide a sequence of images, wherein for at least one of said pedals, the control unit is configured to:
- compare the position of the pedal in two or more of the images in said sequence of images, to detect a positional change of the pedal, and - control the associated actuator based on the detected positional change of the pedal (Pohl [0033], [0055], where Pohl teaches Where a control actuator is located in two different positions within successive images, the time resolved images may be compared and assessed to determine a velocity of the control accelerator. According to one aspect of the disclosure, the one or more image sensors will obtain images at a regular interval. This regular interval may be in interval such as is common for video feeds. According to one aspect of the disclosure, the frame rate may be twenty-four frames per second. Whatever the frame rate, the one or more processors may be configured to determine a time-resolved series of frames by calculating a time distance between frames using the known frame rate).
Regarding claim 4:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein one of said pedals is a brake pedal, wherein the control unit is configured to send an emergency brake signal to a brake actuator associated with the brake pedal when the detected positional change per unit of time exceeds a predetermined threshold (Pohl [0036], [0037], where Pohl teaches the one or more processors may be configured to determine a velocity of the control actuator based on a location of the control actuator within a plurality of images. By assessing a position of the control actuator relative to the control in a plurality of images, these changes in position may be assessed to estimate a velocity of the control actuator relative to the control. Using V =d/t wherein d is a distance traveled by the control accelerator between a first image and a second image, and wherein time t is an elapsed time between the first image and the second image (which may be calculated at least by the frequency of frames and the number of elapsed frames between the first image and the second image). According to one aspect of the disclosure, a trigger action may be the pedal actuator moving toward the pedal at or above a predetermined velocity).
Regarding claim 5:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein said camera is a thermographic camera configured to capture and create images by using infrared radiation emitted from said pedals (Pohl [0046]).
Regarding claim 6:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein at least one of the pedals is connected to a base plate, wherein said fixed structure comprises said base plate, wherein the control unit is configured to determine for said at least one of the pedals, based on the provided image, the position of the pedal relative to its connected base plate (Pohl [0031], [0052]; Rieth [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 7:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches comprising an electronic memory in which a reference image is stored, the reference image containing said two or more pedals when they are in their respective non-pressed original positions, wherein the control unit comprises or has access to said electronic memory, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position of each pedal by comparing the captured image provided by the camera with said reference image (Pohl [0033]-[0034], [0037).
Regarding claim 8:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches wherein the camera is configured to capture an image containing an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal, wherein the control unit is configured to: - send an acceleration signal, based on the determined position of the accelerator pedal, to an associated acceleration actuator, - a brake signal, based on the determined position of the brake pedal, to an associated brake actuator(Pohl [0033]-[0036], [0055]; Rieth [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 10:
Pohl in view of Rieth teaches a vehicle comprising a system according to claim 1 (Pohl [0028]-[0030]; Rieth [0028]-[0029]).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohl (US 20190050655 A1, hereinafter “Pohl”) in view of Rieth et al. (20030067215 A1, hereinafter “Rieth”) and in view of Huth et al. (US 20130245894 A1, hereinafter “Huth”).
Regarding claim 9:
Pohl in view of Rieth fails to explicitly teaches wherein the captured image further contains a clutch pedal, wherein the control unit is configured to send a clutch actuating signal to a clutch actuator based on the determined position of the clutch pedal.
However, Pohl teaches a plurality of pedals can be used in the system where each pedal is motored for corresponding action and position such that appropriate action can be taken (Pohl [0030]-[0032]; Rieth [0028]-[0029]). As a result, one of the plurality of pedals can be used as a clutch pedal by one of ordinary skill in the arts, see furthermore, Huth teaches a system and method for assisting driver wherein a schematic view of the foot well in front of the driver's seat of a motor vehicle. A gas pedal 1, brake pedal 2, and an optional clutch pedal 3 are arranged in a niche below a dashboard 4 in the usual manner. The sides of the niche are bordered by a driver's door 5 and a transmission tunnel 6.
Therefore, taking the teachings of Pohl, Rieth and Huth as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of to include a clutch pedal as one of the plurality of pedals such that the system can be extended to include vehicles that contain manual gear switching.
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 WEDNEL CADEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7843. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/WEDNEL CADEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 February 3, 2026