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 .
This office action is made in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 10/23/2025 wherein, claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14-18, and 20 have been amended, no claims have been added, and no claims have been deleted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claims 4-6, 8-10, 14-16, and 18-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gieseke (US 20150344028A1) in view of Khare (WO-2024132361-A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Gieseke discloses a vehicle comprising:
a first sensor operatively coupled to an electronic processor; and a second sensor operatively coupled to the electronic processor ([0002]; [0004]; [0036]; fig. 6,7);
wherein the electronic processor is configured to: receive a first signal from the first sensor, receive a second signal from the second sensor ([0004]; [0020]; [0024]-[0026]; [0036]: Maneuvering condition is broadly interpreted as the parking space/scene to support a parking maneuver; claim 11),
determine whether the first signal indicates a presence of a maneuvering condition, determine whether the second signal indicates the presence of the maneuvering condition (claims 17 and 18),
in response to determining that the first signal indicates the presence of the maneuvering condition, initiate a vehicle maneuver (claim 16: “responsive to said image processor and to the determined forward limit of the parking space, said vision system is operable to control the equipped vehicle when the equipped vehicle is leaving the parking space.”; [0004]), and
in response to determining that the first signal and the second signal indicate the presence of the maneuvering condition, initiate a full vehicle maneuver (claim 16-18; [0004]; [0019]-[0026]).
However, Gieseke does not explicitly state a limited vehicle maneuver, the limited vehicle maneuver including a vehicle control action at a first magnitude, and the full vehicle maneuver including the vehicle control action at a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude.
On the other hand, KHARE teaches a limited vehicle maneuver, the limited vehicle maneuver including a vehicle control action at a first magnitude, and the full vehicle maneuver including the vehicle control action at a second magnitude, the second magnitude being greater than the first magnitude (Page 2, “initiating a partial braking of the vehicle with a predetermined, constant or continuously increasing partial braking request, in a haptic warning phase; and afterwards initiating a full braking of the vehicle with a predetermined emergency braking request, in an emergency braking phase”; Note: Initial partial braking is broadly interpreted as the limited maneuver; emergency braking phase is broadly interpreted as the full maneuver; Bottom of Page 5, Top of Page 6: “the predetermined partial braking request corresponds to a vehicle acceleration of about -3m/s2 or above. This is an advantageous value to activate braking lights and in addition warn the driver and the following traffic, with just a minor braking request. In a preferred embodiment, the predetermined emergency braking request for full braking corresponds to a vehicle acceleration of about -4 m/s2 or below, in particular -6m/s2 or below. This is an advantageous value in order to brake the vehicle as fast as possible in an emergency event.”; Note: the second magnitude corresponds to a greater braking force (i.e. greater magnitude of deceleration), as evidenced by a larger absolute value (|-4| > |-3|)).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Gieseke reference and include features from the KHARE reference to adjust the magnitude of the vehicle maneuver based on the level of confirmation. Doing so improves the reliability of condition detection ensuring stronger vehicle control actions.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Gieseke discloses the first sensor operates according to a different sensing principle than the second sensor ([0004]; claims 17 and 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nix (US-20170113664-A1) discloses a driver assistance system is presented, including an event detector which comprises a set of rules defining a surprising event based on signals reflecting a vehicle operator input signals from an object detection sensor. An event data file generator is configured to generate an event data file according to rules comprised in the event detector, the event data file comprising a video signal received from a camera, a signal from at least one dynamic vehicle sensor, and target object information received from the object detection sensor. The event data file generator is further configured to initiate data file generation responsive to a surprising event being detected by the event generator, and wherein the contents of the data file are specified by the rules comprised in the event detector. In this way, surprising events may be collected and analyzed off-board in order to generate updates for the driver assistance system.
Weiss (US-20220144254-A1) discloses a method for controlling a safety device of a vehicle. The safety device reacts to an imminent collision by an intervention in a guidance of the vehicle. Environment data and trip data regarding the collision object and the vehicle, and intervention data regarding a planned intervention of the safety device, are read in. First and second expected impingement points of the collision object on the vehicle are ascertained; an uncertainty value of the impingement points is ascertained; and a probability value for a location of at least one of the impingement points relative to subregions referred to the vehicle, is ascertained using the uncertainty value. An evaluation of a location of the impingement points relative to the subregions is executed using the at least one probability value and reference data. S control signal for controlling the safety device is generated depending on a result of the evaluation.
Oechsle (US-20080319610-A1) discloses a method and a device for assisting a driver of a vehicle to avoid collisions with obstacles are provided, in which method at least one obstacle is detected by way of at least one surroundings sensor, and data of the obstacle are ascertained. On the basis of the data of the obstacle and data of the vehicle, a vehicle deceleration that is favorable for assistance of an evasive operation is ascertained, and the vehicle is correspondingly decelerated.
WANG (US-20180056986-A1) discloses a system includes a computing device that includes a processor and a memory. The memory stores instructions executable by the processor. One instruction is to determine a transition in performance of a steering system actuator of a vehicle to a diminished operating mode. Another instruction is to determine a maneuverable envelope of vehicle velocity and path curvature adapted to the diminished operating mode. Another instruction is to select a vehicle velocity within the envelope for a path curvature.
Bolio (US-20090228173-A1) discloses a method for controlling a limited by-wire active front steering system includes measuring an input steering angle, determining a tire saturation limit, and comparing the saturation limit to the input angle. A target actuator angle from a steering actuator is limited when the input angle is greater than the saturation limit. A constant value provides a fixed steering gear ratio when the input angle is less than the saturation limit. A limited by-wire steering system for a vehicle includes a steering device, a sensor for measuring an input steering angle, a controller for calculating a first target actuator angle when the input angle is less than a threshold, and a second target actuator angle when the input angle is greater than the threshold. The threshold is a calibrated saturation limit of a road wheel of the vehicle.
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 SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666