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 Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 4/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-15 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Siebert does not disclose, any monitoring step performed after activation of an emergency control mode to determine whether driver input occurs. Nor does Siebert disclose maintaining an emergency control mode in the absence of detected driver input.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Siebert FIG. 2 (translated and replicated below) and its accompanying description teach: “in step S8 checked if the driver the switch 18 has pressed. The operation of the switch 18 implies that the driver has regained consciousness and at least limited driving ability. Through the active hazard warning lights in step S3 has been turned on, or possibly also by an additional visual or audible indication, the driver is informed that the emergency maneuver has been initiated, and that he maneuvers this only by pressing the switch 18 can cancel. The desk 18 may be identical to the switch, which normally serves to deactivate the driver assistance system and which is usually mounted in an ergonomically favorable position in the vicinity of the steering wheel. When the driver turns the switch 18 has not operated, is done by step S8 a return to step S4 and the emergency maneuver continues. The steps S5 to S7 are repeated until the vehicle has been brought to a standstill. If the vehicle was at the beginning of the emergency maneuver on the leftmost lane of a multi-lane road, is with the steps S5 and S6 also a repeated lane change possible, up to a change on the stand track. If the review in S8 shows that the driver is the switch 18 has pressed, so in step S9 the emergency maneuver is canceled and the driver regains control of the vehicle.”
PNG
media_image1.png
604
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180268695A1 Agnew et al ("Agnew") in view of US20160132054A1 Eigel ("Eigel") and DE10220782B4 Siebert et al ("Siebert", English machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15 Agnew teaches the limitations of the method, device, and vehicle:
A processor-implemented method for responding to an emergency situation (Agnew at least the abstract)
A vehicle (Agnew at least FIG. 25)
A device (Agnew at least the abstract, [0083])
a sensor assembly configured to sense surroundings of a vehicle; (Agnew at least [0018])
a driving information detector configured to detect driving information of the vehicle; (Agnew at least [0017], [0082])
activating an emergency control mode based on a travel trajectory of a vehicle; (Agnew at least [0140]: “calculate a trajectory load…manage a dangerous driving index, based on a result of the calculation”)
activating an emergency light of the vehicle; (Agnew at least [0112]: “operate the hazard lamp”)
determining whether the emergency control mode is active or inactive. (Agnew at least FIG. 5 S40)
Agnew does not explicitly disclose:
stopping the vehicle on a road shoulder and outputting an emergency light of the vehicle based on the activation of the emergency control mode;
Eigel teaches the aforementioned limitations (Eigel at least [0038], [0050], the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eigel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to ensure a vehicle is stopped safely in the event of a sudden incapacity of the driver of the vehicle to drive (Eigel [0005]).
Agnew does not explicitly disclose:
monitoring for a driver input of the vehicle, including at least a steering-wheel operation or other detected driver operation, and when the driver input is detected, determining that the emergency control mode is inactivated, and when the driver input is not detected, maintaining the emergency control mode.
Siebert teaches the aforementioned limitations (Siebert at least the abstract, FIG. 2, ” in step S8 checked if the driver the switch 18 has pressed. The operation of the switch 18 implies that the driver has regained consciousness and at least limited driving ability. Through the active hazard warning lights in step S3 has been turned on, or possibly also by an additional visual or audible indication, the driver is informed that the emergency maneuver has been initiated, and that he maneuvers this only by pressing the switch 18 can cancel. The desk 18 may be identical to the switch, which normally serves to deactivate the driver assistance system and which is usually mounted in an ergonomically favorable position in the vicinity of the steering wheel” and the last paragraph: “following step 10 The follow-up program should be activated, however, the aftercare program should then be deactivated if a passenger takes over the vehicle to provide a quick medical care of the patient.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Siebert with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to increase traffic safety.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
determining a state of a driver based on a driven state monitoring (DSM) camera and steering wheel sensor information. (Agnew at least [0058]: “driver monitoring unit…camera…posture…steering wheel angle sensor”)
Regarding claim 4, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
determining of the state of the driver comprises: determining whether the driver is conscious; determining whether the driver is drowsy or drunk, in response to determining that the driver is conscious; and determining the state of the driver as being abnormal, in response to the driver being unconscious, drowsy, or drunk. (Agnew at least [0144]: “driver status sensing system…drowsy driving”, [0098]: “determining whether the driver abnormally performs driving control…steering wheel…accelerator pedal”)
Regarding claim 6, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
determining the state of the driver based on the DSM camera and a steering wheel sensor. (Agnew at least [0058])
Regarding claim 11, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
a warning outputter configured to output the emergency light and a notification. (Agnew at least [0396]: “notification step through vibration of a steering wheel or seat”, [0142]: “output unit”)
Claim(s) 2, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew in view of Eigel (as in at least claim 1 above) and Siebert in further view of US20250065894A1 Luo et al ("Luo").
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Agnew in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Agnew does not disclose:
the activating of the emergency control mode based on the travel trajectory of the vehicle comprises: generating the travel trajectory of the vehicle via sensor information to determine a predicted route of the vehicle;
determining whether a trajectory generated based on a navigation matches the predicted route; and activating the emergency control mode in response to the travel trajectory not matching the predicted route.
Luo teaches the aforementioned limitations (Luo at least the abstract, [0037-0039], [0071-0077], [0190]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Luo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety (Luo [0678]).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnew, Eigel and Siebert in view of JP2010076552A Kikukawa et al ("Kikukawa", English machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches transmitting an emergency rescue request, in response to the emergency control being active (Agnew at least [0125]).
Agnew does not disclose:
unlocking the vehicle in response to the emergency control mode being active;
However, Kikukawa teaches unlocking the vehicle when the vehicle has come to a stop (Kikukawa at least [0010]: "predetermined condition…engine of the vehicle has stopped or that the traveling speed of the vehicle has dropped below a certain level. This unlocks the vehicle doors", [0012]: “unlocked in the event of a collision or other accident”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kikukawa with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a device or method wherein the doors of the vehicle are unlocked upon stopping on a shoulder of a road in an emergency response. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow occupants to exit the vehicle without having to worry about whether the doors are locked or not (Kikukawa [0010]).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above.
Agnew does not disclose:
unlocking the vehicle, in response to a collision occurring while the vehicle is traveling.
However, Kikukawa teaches the aforementioned limitation (Kikukawa at least [0012]: "doors to be unlocked in the event of a collision or other accident").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Kikukawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to allow occupants to exit the vehicle without having to worry about whether the doors are locked or not (Kikukawa [0010]).
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights