DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/29/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are pending.
Response to Arguments
On page 5 of Remarks filed 4/29/2026, the Applicant contends that Kindo’s second cancellation requirement does not teach “increasing the predetermined override threshold” of the first cancellation requirement. Specifically, the Applicant cites JP 2007-196809 to demonstrate that Kindo has added an eased requirement before a predetermined time elapses “that is easier to cancel the automated driving than the manner of canceling the automated driving after the predetermined time is elapsed” (see ¶0008).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument has been made in previously filed Remarks, and the Examiner has provided similar responses in the Office Actions mailed 2/24/2026 and 9/16/2025. Specifically, as discussed in the rejections below, Kindo teaches “increasing the predetermined override threshold” in at least ¶0019 that describes a second cancellation requirement is associated with a time after the predetermined time is elapsed, where the second cancellation requirement includes a constraint on the cancellation operation that is more severe than the first cancellation requirement, thus, being more difficult to be fulfilled by cancellation operation of the driver than the first cancellation requirement, and ¶0017 that describes override operations by the driver fulfill a predetermined motion of steering wheel operation. Transitioning from the first cancellation requirement to the second cancellation requirement in Kindo involves applying a more severe and difficult constraint on the driver’s override operation after a predetermined time elapses, which functionally increases the steering amount operation threshold necessary to successfully execute an override. Since Kindo explicitly defines override actions to include a steering wheel operation, enforcing a more severe constraint dictates that the system requires a greater physical input (i.e. predetermined motion of steering wheel operation, described in ¶0017) in order to override the automated control. Therefore, Kindo reasonably teaches the limitation of “increasing the override threshold in response to the first time period having elapsed,” interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification, which equates an increased threshold with greater difficulty in paragraph [0065].
On page 6 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that Kindo’s second cancellation requirement is not an increased threshold of the first cancellation requirement value and is a qualitatively different procedural requirement with a purpose of verifying that the driver is in a proper state in order to maintain safe driving state if the changeover is made to manual driving. The Applicant further cites claim 7 and ¶0019 of Kindo that states the driving control portion “cancels automated driving when the override detection portion 15 detects an override before the elapse of the predetermined time, and does not cancel automated driving unless a prescribed procedure is carried out in addition to the detection of override by the override detection portion 5 after the elapse of the predetermined time.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument has been made in previously filed Remarks, and the Examiner has provided similar responses in the Office Actions mailed 2/24/2026 and 9/16/2025. Specifically, the Applicant is arguing against an embodiment of Kindo that has not been applied. The Examiner has applied the embodiment in which a constraint on the cancellation (override) operation is more severe for the second cancellation requirement than the first cancellation requirement, as described in ¶0019 of Kindo, where the cancellation requirement is defined as a predetermined motion of a steering wheel operation in ¶0017.
While the Applicant cites claim 7 of Kindo as evidence that second cancellation requirement is not an increased threshold of the first cancellation requirement value, this argument actually confirms the Examiner’s position that the Applicant is arguing against an embodiment that has not been applied. Claim 7 limits the “second cancellation requirement” to include “performance of a predetermined cancellation procedure in addition to detection of the override operation,” and claim 4 limits the “second cancellation requirement” as including a constraint that “is more severe than the first cancellation requirement.” Claim 7 and claim 4 represent separate and distinct embodiments; claim 4 does not require the elements of claim 7, and both claims depend independently from claim 3.
On page 6 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that regardless of whether one were to interpret Kindo as disclosing different embodiments, in every potential embodiment the second cancellation requirement is an additional procedural verification to confirm driver readiness above and beyond the first cancellation requirement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both the disclosure and claims of Kindo explicitly describe the embodiments of the second cancellation requirement as independent mechanisms. Specifically, as discussed above, claims 4-7 of Kindo contain separate dependent claims that limit the second cancellation requirement in different manners. Only claim 7 limits the second cancellation requirement to be directed to an additional procedural verification to confirm driver readiness. Claim 4 is directed to the embodiment applied by the Examiner and limits the second cancellation requirement to include a constraint that is more severe than the first cancellation requirement. Claims 4 and 7 represent separate and distinct embodiments; claim 4 does not require the elements of claim 7, and both claims depend independently from claim 3.
Further, ¶0008 of Kindo recites:
“In this case, the second cancellation requirement may be more severe in constraint on a cancellation operation of the automated driving by the driver, more complicated in the cancellation operation, or larger in number of times of the cancellation operation than the first cancellation requirement” (emphasis added).
As is evident in the use of the term “or,” the second cancellation requirement does not require an additional readiness check, and it can simply be a quantitative or structural change to the operation itself, e.g., predetermined motion to a steering wheel.
On page 7 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the second cancellation requirement is used for a different purpose than the first cancellation requirement in Kindo and that all variations of the second cancellation requirement must be capable of verifying that the driver is in a state capable of performing proper operations in order for Kindo’s purpose to be achieved. The Applicant further contends that a mere increased amount of a steering threshold cannot confirm that “the driver is in a state capable of performing proper operations” which is the purpose of the second cancellation requirement.
The Examiner agrees that the first and second cancellation requirements serve different underlying purposes based on elapsed time. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that all variations of the second cancellation requirement must be capable of verifying that the driver is in a state capable of performing proper operations. The Applicant seems to be conflating one optional embodiment (i.e. an additional procedural verification) with the broad definition of the second cancellation requirement in Kindo. Specifically, as is evident by the separate embodiments of the second cancellation requirement discussed above, Kindo does not mandate that every embodiment must actively evaluate the driver’s cognitive state. Further, the quoted text cited by the Applicant (i.e. “the driver is in a state capable of performing proper operations”) is not found within the current claim language or the text of Kindo, and therefore, the exact nature of the Applicant’s argument cannot be reasonably determined.
On page 7 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that Braunagel teaches changing a threshold value based on driver responsiveness, not changing the duration of a time period.
The Examiner agrees that a threshold value is changed based on driver responsiveness in Braunagel. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the duration of a time period is not changed based on driver responsiveness in Braunagel. Specifically, Braunagel describes the duration of the time window of t1 to t2 “for as long as the responsiveness of the driver, i.e. his attentiveness or his readiness to take over the driving task, is high” in ¶0021, with respect to Figure 1. Thus, Braunagel teaches dynamically modifying the duration of the time window based on driver responsiveness.
On page 7 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that Braunagel’s E3 is in response to the driver’s inattentiveness, and thus, a different trigger condition is used in the claimed invention than Braunagel.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant seems to conflate how the system detects inattentiveness with how the threshold is used. Specifically, Braunagel teaches increasing the deactivation threshold from E0 to E3 when the driver is detected to be inattentive (see ¶0021-0023), such that if a steering intervention occurs while the driver is inattentive, the steering operation must exceed the higher E3 threshold to successfully deactivate the system (see ¶0014). Therefore, Braunagel teaches a “predetermined override threshold” that pertains to an amount of steering, as claimed.
On page 7 of Remarks, the Applicant reiterates that the increased threshold is a quantitative steering value that can be exceeded by normal driving operations, while Kindo’s second cancellation requirement cannot be characterized this way because it is a procedural verification of driver readiness.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, this particular embodiment of Kindo has not been applied to teach the claimed invention. See the responses provided above.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kindo et al. (WO 2010/131102), hereinafter Kindo, in view of Mere et al. (US 2016/0187879 A1), hereinafter Mere, and Braunagel et al. (US 2018/0370542 A1), hereinafter Braunagel.
Claim 1
Kindo discloses the claimed autonomous driving control device (i.e. driving assist device 1, depicted in Figure 1) that performs an autonomous driving control of a vehicle (see ¶0013, regarding that driving assist device 1 controls the vehicle to carry out automated driving, which may include entirely automated driving), said autonomous driving control device is configured to perform setting a predetermined override threshold during a first time period, wherein the first time period starts at an automatic start of the autonomous driving control (see ¶0019, regarding that a first cancellation requirement is associated with a predetermined time elapsed from the start of automated driving, where the automated driving is cancelled in response to a cancellation operation by the driver fulfilling the first cancellation requirement; ¶0017, regarding that override operations by the driver fulfill predetermined conditions, e.g., predetermined motion), wherein the predetermined override threshold is an amount of steering of the vehicle (see ¶0017, regarding that override operations fulfill a predetermined motion of steering wheel operation). The first cancellation requirement of Kindo may be reasonably interpreted as a “predetermined override threshold,” given that the driver is required to fulfill a predetermined motion of steering wheel operation (see ¶0017) in order to fulfill the first cancellation requirement (see ¶0019).
Kindo does not further disclose the “start of the autonomous driving control” as automatic. However, automatically starting autonomous driving operations is a well-known alternative to manually starting autonomous driving operations and would be an obvious modification in light of Mere.
Specifically, Mere teaches the known technique of providing an automatic start to full autonomous controlled driving (similar to the start of the autonomous driving control of Kindo) (see ¶0029, regarding that the autonomous vehicle interface transitions from non-autonomous controlled driving to autonomous controlled driving without user activations, taking into account the user’s state and surrounding environmental conditions while driving; ¶0050, with respect to Figure 5, regarding the automatic activation of autonomous control based on the user state; ¶0055, with respect to Figure 7, regarding the automatic activation of autonomous control based on the determination of whether a lane is crossed).
In Kindo, manual operations of a steering wheel, accelerator, or brake are performed by the driver to meet cancellation requirements for exiting autonomous driving control. In Mere, detected states of the driver and lanes are compared with predefined conditions for exiting autonomous driving control. However, it is the technique of starting autonomous driving control automatically, as an alternative to manually, that is modified by Mere; therefore, the particular methods in which the autonomous control is overridden does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Kindo and Mere are directed to the same purpose, i.e. transitioning between manual driving control and autonomous driving control, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the start of the autonomous driving control of Kindo to be automatic, in the same manner that Mere automatically transitions from non-autonomous controlled driving to autonomous controlled driving without user activations, with the predictable result of not requiring the user to activate an autonomous mode, which may be inconvenient or impossible at times (¶0004 of Mere).
Kindo further discloses the claimed autonomous driving control device is configured to perform increasing the predetermined override threshold in response to the first time period having elapsed (see ¶0019, regarding that a second cancellation requirement is associated with a time after the predetermined time is elapsed, where the second cancellation requirement includes a constraint on the cancellation operation that is more severe than the first cancellation requirement, thus, being more difficult to be fulfilled by cancellation operation of the driver than the first cancellation requirement; ¶0017, regarding that override operations by the driver fulfill a predetermined motion), wherein the increased predetermined override threshold is set to a value that the amount of steering of the vehicle by the driver is capable of exceeding during manual driving (see ¶0019, regarding that automated driving may be cancelled when a second cancellation requirement is fulfilled, where the automated driving is cancelled in response to a cancellation operation by the driver, defined as including a steering wheel operation in which the override fulfills a predetermined motion, as described in ¶0017). Transitioning from the first cancellation requirement to the second cancellation requirement in Kindo involves applying a more severe and difficult constraint on the driver’s override operation after a predetermined time elapses, which functionally increases the steering amount operation threshold necessary to successfully execute an override. Since Kindo explicitly defines override actions to include a steering wheel operation, enforcing a more severe constraint dictates that the system requires a greater physical input (i.e. predetermined motion of steering wheel operation, described in ¶0017) in order to override the automated control. Therefore, Kindo reasonably teaches “increasing the override threshold in response to the first time period having elapsed,” interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Applicant’s specification, which equates an increased threshold with greater difficulty in paragraph [0065].
In light of the arguments discussed above, the Applicant should further note that claim 4 of Kindo clearly defines the “more severe” constraint as a separate and distinct embodiment from the “more complicated” and “larger in number of times” cancellation operations, and therefore, it would not be reasonable to interpret the more severe constraint as pertaining to a more complicated and/or larger in number of times cancellation operation.
Kindo further discloses the claimed autonomous driving control device is configured to perform detecting an override operation by the driver during execution of the autonomous driving control for automatically controlling at least one of a plurality of driving operations including acceleration, deceleration, and steering of the vehicle (see ¶0025-0026, with respect to step S03 in Figure 2, regarding that override detection portion 5 detects override of the driver, defined as driving operations by the driver during automated driving, such as steering wheel operation, accelerator operation, and brake operation in ¶0017) and terminating the autonomous driving control when the override operation is equal to or greater than the predetermined override threshold (see ¶0026-0027, with respect to step S04 of Figure 2, regarding that driving control portion 61 makes a changeover from automated driving mode to manual driving mode in response to detecting an override of the driver in step S03, where the detection of an override is defined as fulfilling a predetermined motion of a steering wheel, as described in ¶0017).
While Kindo discloses the step of “increasing the predetermined override threshold,” as discussed in detail above, Braunagel is applied in combination to ensure that this feature is fully taught. Additionally, because Kindo fails to disclose utilizing a monitor device that monitors a state of a driver of the vehicle and changing the first time period based on the state of the driver monitored by the monitor device, Braunagel is further applied to teach these limitations.
Specifically, Braunagel teaches a similar autonomous driving control device (see ¶0010, regarding that a driver assistance system for the autonomous driving operation of a vehicle carries out the inventive method of Braunagel) that deactivates an automated driving function (similar to terminating the autonomous driving control of Kindo) when a driver requests a steering torque (similar to the override operation of Kindo) greater than a deactivation threshold (similar to the predetermined override threshold of Kindo) (see ¶0013-0014). As depicted in Figure 1, with respect to ¶0021, Braunagel further teaches that the deactivation threshold Es(t) is set to a low value E0 between times t1 and t2 and a higher value E3 after time t2, thus, increasing the deactivation threshold after time period t1 to t2.
Braunagel further teaches utilizing a monitor device that monitors a state of the driver (see ¶0023, regarding that the responsiveness of the driver is determined using a camera), and changing the period of time in which the deactivation threshold Es(t) is kept constant at the pre-set threshold value E0 (similar to the first time period of Kindo) based on the state of the driver monitored by the monitor device (see ¶0021, regarding that the deactivation threshold Es(t) is kept constant at the pre-set threshold value E0 only for as long as the responsiveness of the driver is high, where the responsiveness of the driver is determined using a camera, as discussed in ¶0023).
In Kindo, autonomous driving control is more easily terminated from the start of the autonomous driving control. In Braunagel, autonomous driving control is more easily terminated after a predetermined time window t0 to t1, depicted in Figure 1. However, it is the techniques of increasing an override threshold so that autonomous driving control is more difficult to terminate after a time period has elapsed and adjusting the period of time in which the autonomous driving control is more easily terminated based on a detected state of the driver that is modified by Braunagel; therefore, the particular start time in which the autonomous driving control is more easily terminated does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Kindo and Braunagel are directed to the same purpose, i.e. terminating autonomous driving control when a steering override operation satisfies a predetermined threshold, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined override threshold of Kindo to be increased after the first time period has elapsed, and the system of Kindo to further perform utilizing a monitor device that monitors a state of the driver, and changing the first time period based on the state of the driver monitored by the monitor device, in the same manner that Braunagel increases a deactivation threshold after a time period and maintains a deactivation threshold for an amount of time based on the responsiveness of a driver determined by a camera, with the predictable result of making a driving task more difficult for the driver to deactivate by an unknowing or unintended action (¶0024 of Braunagel) reflected by a driver’s attentiveness or readiness to take over the driving task (¶0021 of Braunagel), such as in situations where a changeover to manual needs to be restrained due to the driver not being sufficiently ready (¶0030 of Kindo).
Claim 2
Kindo further discloses that the claimed device is configured to notify the driver of the start of the autonomous driving control (see ¶0021, regarding driving mode output portion 7 notifies the driver of the current driving mode, including the automated driving mode).
Claim 4
Kindo further discloses that the claimed device is configured to notify the driver that the override threshold is likely to be satisfied before the first time period is elapsed, and that the override threshold is unlikely to be satisfied after the first time period has elapsed (see ¶0021, regarding that the driving mode output portion 7 notifies the driver of whether manners of canceling automated driving of the vehicle at the current time is easy or difficult). The notification of the canceling being easy in Kindo teaches the notification of the “override condition likely to be satisfied before the first time period is elapsed,” and the notification of the canceling being difficult in Kindo teaches the notification of the “override condition unlikely to be satisfied after the first period has elapsed,” in light of the predetermined time defined with respect to the first and second cancellation requirements in ¶0019 of Kindo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Engeln et al. (CN 102372004 A) teaches a driver assistance device in which terminations may be performed only in a certain period of time (see ¶0020 of translation), Oba (US 2017/0364070 A1) teaches switching between autonomous and manual driving modes based on an obtained state of the driver (see abstract), and Cullinane et al. (US 2014/0156134 A1) teaches allowing a driver to switch from a manual to autonomous driving mode under certain determined conditions (see abstract).
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 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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights