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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 remain pending in the application. The amendment filed 11/7/2025 overcomes the previous rejections under 35 USC 103, accordingly the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 9 & 15: driving information detector, [0076] sensor
Claim 11: warning outputter, [0082] emergency light and/or in-vehicle warning device
Claim 15: emergency situation response device, [0069] sensor and processor
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
after activation of the emergency control mode, 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 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
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