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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-30 are pending in this application.
Claims 3 and 18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 26, and 29-30 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-30 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 11, 16-18, 22, 26, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph have been fully considered, and the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 Line 1 “of claim 3” should be – of claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 and 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 16-17, 22, and 26 recites the limitation "the signal modulator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant need to change the first signal modulator in claim 16 to a signal modulator.
Claims 19-21, 23-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependencies on 112(b) rejected claim 16.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 12-17, 19-20, 22-24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (Foreign Reference EP 0900712, included in the applicant’s IDS) in view of Domingo (US Publication 2019/0135286 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuo teaches a method performed by a driver-in-the-loop (DIL) component of a vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 29; the second control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means, is gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver), comprising: ……… receiving a first input signal generated based on a first interaction of a driver of the vehicle with a component of the vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 22; driver operates the steering wheel 1 to discontinue the automatic parking control); applying the signal modulator to an amplitude of the first input signal to generate a first output signal, wherein the first output signal represents at least a ramp-in of driver control over the component of the vehicle from no driver control to full driver control (Yasuo: Para. 24, Fig. 4B; control amount of the steering actuator 7 increases accompanying the change of operation from automatic steering control to power steering control, the amount of control is nearly increased from a value of the automatic steering control up to a value of the power steering control over the passage of the predetermined period of time to as shown in Fig. 4B), and wherein the ramp-in of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the first input signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver); and transmitting the first output signal to a controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to reduce control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-in of the driver control represented by the first output signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; the second control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means, is gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver).
Yasuo doesn’t explicitly teach receiving user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator.
However Domingo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator (Domingo: Para. 72; power control signal(s) can be further modulated in real time during the race using a number of additional variables and rules selected by the user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) with a reasonable expectation of success because the programmed table can be any arbitrary set of acceleration and elapsed time pairs selected by the user based on previous experience and knowledge of the vehicle and track allowing for a safer and more controllable vehicle orientation (Domingo: Para. 72).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second input signal generated based on a second interaction of the driver of the vehicle with the component of the vehicle operating in a manual driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 19; the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means); applying the signal modulator to an amplitude of the second input signal to generate a second output signal, wherein the second output signal represents at least a ramp-out of driver control over the component of the vehicle from full driver control to no driver control (Yasuo: Para. 19; the controller calculates a deviation E = (θref - θ) based on the standard steering angle θref in the reverse parking/left mode, read out from the storage means and the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means; controls the operation of the steering actuator, so that the deviation E becomes 0), and wherein the ramp-out of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the second input signal (Yasuo: Para. 24; a control means for changing between a first control state for controlling the operation of the actuator based on a steering torque exerted by a driver on a vehicle steering wheel and a second control state for controlling the operation of the actuator based on the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means; the control amount is linearly decreased from a value of the automatic steering control down to a value of the power steering control over the passage of a predetermined period of time); and transmitting the second output signal to the controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to increase control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-out of the driver control represented by the second output signal (Yasuo: Para. 5, 19; deviation E = (θref - θ) based on the standard steering angle θref in the reverse parking/left mode, read out from the storage means and the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means; controls the operation of the steering actuator 7, so that the deviation E becomes 0; control means gradually changes the second control state to the first control state).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user-defined values for the one or more parameters are received from a user interface of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 26; predetermined period of time to may not be fixed but may be a function of the steering speed or the steering torque).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the user-defined values for the one or more parameters are set by the driver of the vehicle via the user interface of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 26; predetermined period of time to may not be fixed but may be a function of the steering speed or the steering torque).
Regarding claim 7, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the one or more parameters comprise: an amount of time for an attack period of the signal modulator, an amount of time for a sustain period of the signal modulator, an amount of time for a release period of the signal modulator, or any combination thereof (Yasuo: Para. 26; when a quick steering operation is effected, the predetermined period of time to may be shortened so that the automatic steering control operation can be quickly changed to the power steering control operation to enhance the steering response).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: comparing the user-defined values for the one or more parameters to preset limits for the one or more parameters (Yasuo: Para. 25-26; predetermined period of time is set, for example, to about one second; hen a quick steering operation is effected, the predetermined period of time to may be shortened); and reducing any user-defined values of the one or more parameters that exceed the preset limits for the one or more parameters to no greater than the preset limits for the one or more parameters (Yasuo: Para. 33; automatic steering control operation is not quickly changed to power steering control operation, but rather is gradually changed to the power steering control operation; the control amount is nearly changed from a value of the automatic steering control operation to a value of the power steering control operation over a predetermined period of time).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are received from: a lateral acceleration limiter component of the vehicle, a lateral control component of the vehicle, or any combination thereof (Yasuo: Para. 12-13; data for the four parking modes, i.e., relationships of standard steering angles θref relative to traveling distances X of the vehicle V are stored in advance).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the component of the vehicle is a steering wheel of the vehicle, and the first input signal represents an amount of torque applied to the steering wheel (Yasuo: Para. 22; steering wheel; the steering torque detection means detects the steering torque produced by the steering operation of the driver).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the component of the vehicle is a pinion or wheel of the vehicle, and the first input signal represents a steering angle of the pinion or wheel (Yasuo: Para. 9, 10; the front wheels which are steering wheels, are connected together through a steering shaft that rotates together with the steering wheel, a pinion provided at a lower end of the steering shaft, a rack meshed with the pinion; controller receives a signal from a steering angle detecting means for detecting the steering angle θ of the front wheels).
Regarding claim 14, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the controller module comprises: a power steering unit of the vehicle, or a steering torque manager of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 4; power steering control).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first input signal is received from: a lane-keeping assistance (LKA) feature of the vehicle, a traffic assist feature of the vehicle, or an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 9; automatic steering for garaging of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Yasuo teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more memories (Yasuo: Para. 10; a controller and a storage means); and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination (Yasuo: Para. 11; mode selecting switch and an automatic parking start switch, which are both operated by the driver, are connected to the controller), configured to: ……….. receive a first input signal generated based on a first interaction of a driver of a vehicle with a component of the vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 22; driver operates the steering wheel to discontinue the automatic parking control); apply the signal modulator to an amplitude of the first input signal to generate a first output signal, wherein the first output signal represents at least a ramp-in of driver control over the component of the vehicle from no driver control to full driver control (Yasuo: Para. 24, Fig. 4B; control amount of the steering actuator increases accompanying the change of operation from automatic steering control to power steering control, the amount of control is nearly increased from a value of the automatic steering control up to a value of the power steering control over the passage of the predetermined period of time to as shown in Fig. 4B), and wherein the ramp-in of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the first input signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver); and transmit the first output signal to a controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to reduce control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-in of the driver control represented by the first output signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; the second control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means, is gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver).
Yasuo doesn’t explicitly teach receive user-defined values for one or more parameters of the signal modulator.
However Domingo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive user-defined values for one or more parameters of the signal modulator (Domingo: Para. 41, 72; power control signal(s) can be further modulated in real time during the race using a number of additional variables and rules selected by the user; Graphical User Interface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) with a reasonable expectation of success because the programmed table can be any arbitrary set of acceleration and elapsed time pairs selected by the user based on previous experience and knowledge of the vehicle and track allowing for a safer and more controllable vehicle orientation (Domingo: Para. 72).
Regarding claim 17, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a second input signal generated based on a second interaction of the driver of the vehicle with the component of the vehicle operating in a manual driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 19; the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means); apply the signal modulator to an amplitude of the second input signal to generate a second output signal, wherein the second output signal represents at least a ramp-out of driver control over the component of the vehicle from full driver control to no driver control (Yasuo: Para. 19; the controller calculates a deviation E = (θref - θ) based on the standard steering angle θref in the reverse parking/left mode, read out from the storage means and the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means; controls the operation of the steering actuator, so that the deviation E becomes 0), and wherein the ramp-out of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the second input signal (Yasuo: Para. 24; a control means for changing between a first control state for controlling the operation of the actuator based on a steering torque exerted by a driver on a vehicle steering wheel and a second control state for controlling the operation of the actuator based on the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means; the control amount is linearly decreased from a value of the automatic steering control down to a value of the power steering control over the passage of a predetermined period of time); and transmit the second output signal to the controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to increase control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-out of the driver control represented by the second output signal (Yasuo: Para. 5, 19; deviation E = (θref - θ) based on the standard steering angle θref in the reverse parking/left mode, read out from the storage means and the steering angle θ inputted from the steering angle detecting means; controls the operation of the steering actuator, so that the deviation E becomes 0; control means gradually changes the second control state to the first control state).
Regarding claim 19, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the user-defined values for the one or more parameters are received from a user interface of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 26; predetermined period of time to may not be fixed but may be a function of the steering speed or the steering torque).
Regarding claim 20, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the user-defined values for the one or more parameters are set by the driver of the vehicle via the user interface of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 26; predetermined period of time to may not be fixed but may be a function of the steering speed or the steering torque).
Regarding claim 22, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more parameters comprise: an amount of time for an attack period of the signal modulator, an amount of time for a sustain period of the signal modulator, an amount of time for a release period of the signal modulator, or any combination thereof (Yasuo: Para. 26; when a quick steering operation is effected, the predetermined period of time to may be shortened so that the automatic steering control operation can be quickly changed to the power steering control operation to enhance the steering response).
Regarding claim 23, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: compare the user-defined values for the one or more parameters to preset limits for the one or more parameters (Yasuo: Para. 25-26; predetermined period of time is set, for example, to about one second; hen a quick steering operation is effected, the predetermined period of time to may be shortened); and reduce any user-defined values of the one or more parameters that exceed the preset limits for the one or more parameters to no greater than the preset limits for the one or more parameters (Yasuo: Para. 33; automatic steering control operation is not quickly changed to power steering control operation, but rather is gradually changed to the power steering control operation; the control amount is nearly changed from a value of the automatic steering control operation to a value of the power steering control operation over a predetermined period of time).
Regarding claim 24, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are received from: a lateral acceleration limiter component of the vehicle, a lateral control component of the vehicle, or any combination thereof (Yasuo: Para. 12-13; data for the four parking modes, i.e., relationships of standard steering angles θref relative to traveling distances X of the vehicle V are stored in advance).
Regarding claim 27, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the controller module comprises: a power steering unit of the vehicle, or a steering torque manager of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 4; power steering control)
Regarding claim 28, Yasuo teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the first input signal is received from: a lane-keeping assistance (LKA) feature of the vehicle, a traffic assist feature of the vehicle, or an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) of the vehicle (Yasuo: Para. 9; automatic steering for garaging of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 29, Yasuo teaches an apparatus (Yasuo: Fig. 1), comprising: ……… means for receiving a first input signal generated based on a first interaction of a driver of a vehicle with a component of the vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 22; driver operates the steering wheel 1 to discontinue the automatic parking control); means for applying the signal modulator to an amplitude of the first input signal to generate a first output signal, wherein the first output signal represents at least a ramp-in of driver control over the component of the vehicle from no driver control to full driver control (Yasuo: Para. 24, Fig. 4B; control amount of the steering actuator 7 increases accompanying the change of operation from automatic steering control to power steering control, the amount of control is nearly increased from a value of the automatic steering control up to a value of the power steering control over the passage of the predetermined period of time to as shown in Fig. 4B), and wherein the ramp-in of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the first input signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver); and means for transmitting the first output signal to a controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to reduce control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-in of the driver control represented by the first output signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; the second control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means, is gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver).
Yasuo doesn’t explicitly teach means for receiving user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator.
However Domingo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches means for receiving user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator (Domingo: Para. 41, 72; power control signal(s) can be further modulated in real time during the race using a number of additional variables and rules selected by the user; Graphical User Interface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) with a reasonable expectation of success because the programmed table can be any arbitrary set of acceleration and elapsed time pairs selected by the user based on previous experience and knowledge of the vehicle and track allowing for a safer and more controllable vehicle orientation (Domingo: Para. 72).
Regarding claim 30, Yasuo teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that (Yasuo: Para. 10; a controller and a storage means), when executed by a driver-in-the-loop (DIL) component, cause the DIL component to: ………. receive a first input signal generated based on a first interaction of a driver of a vehicle with a component of the vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode (Yasuo: Para. 22; driver operates the steering wheel 1 to discontinue the automatic parking control); apply the signal modulator to an amplitude of the first input signal to generate a first output signal, wherein the first output signal represents at least a ramp-in of driver control over the component of the vehicle from no driver control to full driver control (Yasuo: Para. 24, Fig. 4B; control amount of the steering actuator 7 increases accompanying the change of operation from automatic steering control to power steering control, the amount of control is nearly increased from a value of the automatic steering control up to a value of the power steering control over the passage of the predetermined period of time to as shown in Fig. 4B), and wherein the ramp-in of the driver control is limited by application of the signal modulator to the amplitude of the first input signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver); and transmit the first output signal to a controller module for the component of the vehicle to enable the controller module to reduce control over the component of the vehicle based on the ramp-in of the driver control represented by the first output signal (Yasuo: Para. 29; the second control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the locus of movement set by the movement locus setting means, is gradually changed to the first control state in which the operation of the actuator is controlled based upon the steering torque given to the steering wheel by the driver).
Yasuo doesn’t explicitly teach receive user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator.
However Domingo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receive user-defined values for one or more parameters of a signal modulator (Domingo: Para. 72; power control signal(s) can be further modulated in real time during the race using a number of additional variables and rules selected by the user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) with a reasonable expectation of success because the programmed table can be any arbitrary set of acceleration and elapsed time pairs selected by the user based on previous experience and knowledge of the vehicle and track allowing for a safer and more controllable vehicle orientation (Domingo: Para. 72).
Claims 6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (Foreign Reference EP 0900712) in view of Domingo (US Publication 2019/0135286 A1) and in further view of MacNeille et al. (US Publication 2017/0358203 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the user interface comprises an infotainment head unit (IHU) of the vehicle.
However MacNeille, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user interface comprises an infotainment head unit (IHU) of the vehicle (MacNeille: Para. 27; infotainment head unit provides an interface between the vehicle and a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) and a transceiver connected infotainment head unit (MacNeille: Para. 16, 27) with a reasonable expectation of success because communication between the vehicle and the user through an infotainment head unit to receive input from the user (MacNeille: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 21, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the user interface comprises an infotainment head unit (IHU) of the vehicle.
However MacNeille, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user interface comprises an infotainment head unit (IHU) of the vehicle (MacNeille: Para. 27; infotainment head unit provides an interface between the vehicle and a user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) and a transceiver connected infotainment head unit (MacNeille: Para. 16, 27) with a reasonable expectation of success because communication between the vehicle and the user through an infotainment head unit to receive input from the user (MacNeille: Para. 26).
Claims 10-11 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (Foreign Reference EP 0900712) in view of Domingo (US Publication 2019/0135286 A1) and in further view of Shmueli Friedland et al. (US Publication 2022/0234499 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are based on: a current speed of the vehicle, regulatory requirements, or any combination thereof.
However Shmueli Friedland, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are based on: a current speed of the vehicle, regulatory requirements, or any combination thereof (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28; AVAS may operate at speeds on the order of 0 to 32 kilometers per hour; another system called an electric vehicle sound enhancement (EVSE) system may provide audio output at higher speeds than those at which the AVAS is implemented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) using the ADSR envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28) with a reasonable expectation of success because an ADSR modulated signal from an acoustic vehicle alert system where there are preset values based on vehicle speed (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 19, 28) shows an example of an ADSR modulating a changing signal from a vehicle system.
Regarding claim 11, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the signal modulator comprises an attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) envelope.
However Shmueli Friedland, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the signal modulator comprises an attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 19; specific envelope that is output by the AVAS or EVSE system for a given vehicle operation differs; augmentation may take the form of a modification to a timing or audio aspect of the ADSR).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) using the ADSR envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28) with a reasonable expectation of success because an ADSR modulated signal from an acoustic vehicle alert system where there are preset values based on vehicle speed (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 19, 28) shows an example of an ADSR modulating a changing signal from a vehicle system.
Regarding claim 25, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are based on: a current speed of the vehicle, regulatory requirements, or any combination thereof.
However Shmueli Friedland, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the preset limits for the one or more parameters are based on: a current speed of the vehicle, regulatory requirements, or any combination thereof (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28; AVAS may operate at speeds on the order of 0 to 32 kilometers per hour; another system called an electric vehicle sound enhancement (EVSE) system may provide audio output at higher speeds than those at which the AVAS is implemented).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) using the ADSR envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28) with a reasonable expectation of success because an ADSR modulated signal from an acoustic vehicle alert system where there are preset values based on vehicle speed (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 19, 28) shows an example of an ADSR modulating a changing signal from a vehicle system.
Regarding claim 26, Yasuo and Domingo don’t explicitly teach wherein the signal modulator comprises an attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) envelope.
However Shmueli Friedland, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the signal modulator comprises an attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR) envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 29; specific envelope that is output by the AVAS or EVSE system for a given vehicle operation differs; augmentation may take the form of a modification to a timing or audio aspect of the ADSR)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the linear gradual change between autonomous and manual drive modes (Yasuo: Para. 24 Fig. A and B) with variables and rules selected by the user (Domingo: Para. 72) using the ADSR envelope (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 28) with a reasonable expectation of success because an ADSR modulated signal from an acoustic vehicle alert system where there are preset values based on vehicle speed (Shmueli Friedland: Para. 19, 28) shows an example of an ADSR modulating a changing signal from a vehicle system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4 December 2025 with respect to claims 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663