DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the Amendments and the Arguments on 06/09/2026. Claims 3 – 5 and 15 – 17 remain cancelled.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungermann (US 20180362013).
Claim 1, as best understood, Ungermann discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a switch configured to generate a signal for the vehicle to perform emergency stopping during driving; and a driving controller configured to control the vehicle to perform the emergency stopping in response to the signal generated by the switch [see Fig 1 and p0050 – 0052].
wherein:
the signal comprises a first signal generated in response to a first input to the switch, the signal further comprises a second signal generated in response to a second input to the switch, the second input being different from the first input, the first input and the second input are manual inputs [see Figs 1 and 2, p0007, p0011, p0057 – 0058, p0064; in step 100 of the flowchart in FIG. 2 it is detected that an operator (for example the driver or the front seat passenger) has started to actuate the parking brake operator control element BE (first input = at t.sub.1 the switch BE is pulled). In reaction to the actuation of the parking brake operator control element BE. The second input at t.sub.2 sends a signal to begin emergency stop function, the first input is different than the second and both occur on switch BE].
the driving controller is further configured to:
control an input-output device to display a notification that the vehicle is to be emergency stopped in response to the first signal [see p0064 - the activation of the function is indicated to the driver, for example on a central display in the vehicle cockpit];
confirm whether a device included in the vehicle is not operated after the first input is made [see p0022, p0037 – p0039 -the driver's condition information can alternatively or additionally also be information which relates to the actuation or non-actuation of one or more driver operator control elements (e.g. steering wheel, brake pedal or accelerator pedal) for the manual guidance of the vehicle. If, for example when the operator control element is actuated, a comfort driver assistance system with automatic longitudinal guidance and/or transverse guidance is automatically deactivated, it is possible to use as driver's condition information whether the driver assumes the driving task and actuates the accelerator pedal and/or the steering pedal, in particular actuates them normally. The driver assistance system is designed to prohibit activation of the emergency stop function as a function of the driver's condition information. Alternatively or additionally, the driver assistance system can be configured to abort an emergency stop function which has already been activated – thus teaching if there is non-actuation of one of the devices above, used for regular driving, then confirmation is complete that a device is not operated];
control the input-output device to provide guidance for operating the switch for
the second input, in response to the device not being operated [see Fig 3 and p0057 – p0066 - emergency stop function begins with switch BE at t.sub.1 is activated (pulled) at a certain time later (t.sub.2) the switch is again triggered by a release (t.sub.2 is the second input)].
control the vehicle to perform the emergency stop in response to the second signal based on the second input if the device is not being operated [see p0063 – p0064 and Fig 3, at the time t.sub.2 (second input = second signal) (t.sub.1 being first input/first signal) the operator ends the actuation of the parking brake operator control element BE at t.sub.2, the switch BE is released; In reaction to ending of the actuation of the parking brake operator control element BE, the emergency stop function is activated (see step 130 in FIG. 2)].
Ungermann also teaches that when the emergency stopping is performed in response to the second signal, the driving controller is further configured to decelerate the vehicle at a first deceleration rate that is less than a second deceleration rate used when the emergency stopping is automatically performed without the first signal and the second signal being generated by the switch, however Ungermann appears state the recitation in reverse.
Ungermann discloses the maximum deceleration during the manual braking of the vehicle is preferably greater than the maximum deceleration during the emergency stop maneuver, with the result that, for example, rapid braking can be ensured in an emergency stop situation in which the brake pedal has failed; After the activation of the function, the vehicle is automatically decelerated in its own lane to a specific target speed v.sub.targ, e.g. v.sub.targ=100 km/h, if it does not already have a speed of v.sub.targ or less (see step 140). The maximum deceleration during the braking of the vehicle before the activation of the emergency stop function is higher than during the emergency stop maneuver. (p0066)Which is teaching that when the BE switch is activated in Ungermann, the emergency stop function is activated and the vehicle begins to slow down, and it slows down at a first deceleration rate which is less than it would if there was an emergency stop maneuver (no pulling of BE) and a quick rate of deceleration and requires the hydraulic service brake, see p0013].
The maximum deceleration during the manual braking of the vehicle is preferably greater than the maximum deceleration during the emergency stop maneuver, with the result that, for example, rapid braking can be ensured in an emergency stop situation in which the brake pedal has failed [see p0010 – p0015 and p0066].
Also see response to arguments below.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann to include the emergency stopping is performed in response to the second signal, the driving controller is further configured to decelerate the vehicle at a first deceleration rate that is less than a second deceleration rate used when the emergency stopping is automatically performed without the first signal and the second signal being generated by the switch, as suggested and taught by Ungermann, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a slower and more controlled stopping feature when a person is controlling the switch for an emergency. This gives the occupants a more comfortable stop without an abrupt stop that could injure an occupant or cause rear end collisions.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claim 8, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the switch is an electronic parking brake switch [see p0007 - a driver assistance system having an emergency stop function for a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle comprises an electric parking brake, in particular an electromechanical parking brake (EMF). A parking brake operator control element serves to activate the electric parking brake when the motor vehicle is in a stationary state. Said parking brake operator control element is preferably an operator control element which can be actuated manually, for example a switch in the center console or in the dashboard].
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as Claim 8, see above.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungermann (US 20180362013) in view of Klink (US 20200377098 A1).
Claim 2, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the driving controller is further configured to control the vehicle to perform the emergency stopping in response the first input to the switch lasting longer than a first period of time; and the second input to the switch lasting longer than a second period of time.
However, Klink discloses the manual activation of the emergency stop assistance function can take place, e.g., in that the operating element must be actuated for a predefined time period, e.g. pulled in the first direction or pushed in the opposite direction; the corresponding warning can inform the passengers of the upcoming activation during the actuation. The manual activation of the emergency stop assistance function can first take place after the predefined time period has elapsed while the operating element is being actuated (second period of time) [(see para 0012)].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann, to include wherein the driving controller is further configured to control the vehicle to perform the emergency stopping, in response the first input to the switch lasting longer than a first period of time; and the second input to the switch lasting longer than a second period of time, as suggested and taught by Klink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing safely bringing the vehicle to a standstill, without the aid of the driver. It is frequently disadvantageous that another occupant, such as a passenger, cannot optimally interact with the emergency stop assistance function.
Claims 13 and 14 are similarly rejected as Claim 2, see above.
Claim 9, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the driving controller is further configured to: confirm whether a device included in the vehicle is not operated after the first input to the switch lasts for a first period of time; and control the vehicle to perform the emergency stopping, in response to the second input to the switch lasting for a second period of time.
However, Klink discloses he manual activation of the emergency stop assistance function can first take place after the predefined time period has elapsed while the operating element is being actuated. In other words, a temporal intermittent activation of the operating element does not result in activation of the emergency stop assistance function [See (para 0012)].
Further Klink discloses, when the operating element is moved and/or held in an actuating position, a predefined time period can elapse, and the activation of the emergency stop assistance function can first take place manually after this time period has elapsed [see (para 0020)].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann, to include wherein the driving controller is further configured to: confirm whether a device included in the vehicle is not operated after the first input to the switch lasts for a first period of time; and control the vehicle to perform the emergency stopping, in response to the second input to the switch lasting for a second period of time, as suggested and taught by Klink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a significant reduction in the time needed for the activation of an emergency stop activation system, which prevents errors by preventing uncontrolled and high speed of a vehicle further travel of the vehicle during an emergency.
Claim 10, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the driving controller is further configured to control the vehicle not to perform the emergency stopping, in response the device included in the vehicle being operated during the second input to the switch.
Klink discloses an alarm initiation device may be configured for initiating at least one alarm action in the vehicle, preferably to initiate a pumping of the brakes, and/or a tensioning of the seatbelt in the vehicle in accordance with a second activation stage. The execution device may preferably be configured to activate the second activation stage in accordance with the first stage selection and/or in accordance with the second stage selection [see para 0017].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann, to include wherein the driving controller is further configured to control the vehicle not to perform the emergency stopping, in response to a device included in the vehicle being operated during the second input to the switch, as suggested and taught by Klink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing that the driver can be alerted in order to assume control of the vehicle, teaching that the emergency stopping does not take place (driver in control).
Claim 11, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the driving controller is further configured to perform an acceleration limit control in response to the first input to the switch.
However, Klink discloses a warning can first be issued to the driver in accordance with a first activation stage, in particular to request that the driver assume control of the vehicle, and/or initiate braking and/or seatbelt tensioning [see (para p0025)].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann, to include wherein the driving controller is further configured to perform an acceleration limit control in response to the first input to the switch, as suggested and taught by Klink, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing that the driver can be alerted in order to assume control of the vehicle, teaching that the emergency stopping does not take place, but other warning such as initiate braking and/or seat belt tensioning will take place to warn the driver.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ungermann (US 20180362013) in view of WO2021038935A1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘935).
Claim 6, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the switch is further configured to: move in a first direction relative to a center position; move in second direction relative to the center position, the second direction being different than the first direction; and be biased towards the center position.
However, ‘935 teaches an operating device that controls a driving force and a resisting force applied to an operating portion that is operable in at least a first direction and a second direction. The operation unit 10 may be provided with a biasing means (not shown). 286 The biasing means may be, for example, a coil spring. For example, when the operating unit 10 is tilted in one direction, the coil spring contracts, and when the tilting is released or weakened, the coil spring expands, returning the operating unit 10 to the neutral position. The operation unit 10 is provided with a biasing means, for example a coil spring, and a return-to-origin position C1 is set near the center of the movement [see Figs 8 – 11 and p0025, p0085].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann to include wherein, the switch is configured to move in a first direction relative to a center position, wherein the switch is configured to move in second direction relative to the center position, the second direction being different than the first direction, and wherein the switch is configured to be biased towards the center position, as suggested and taught by ‘935, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a switch or operating device performing control that provides precise, stable operation and a fine feeling of operation.
Claim 18 is similarly rejected as Claim 6, see above.
Claim 7, Ungermann discloses the vehicle of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the switch is further configured to: generate the first signal in response to the first input to the switch physically moving the switch in the first direction; and generate the second signal in response to the second input to the switch physically moving the switch in the second direction.
However, ‘935 discloses the position of the operating unit in a first direction (first input) is detected by the first position detection unit, and the position in the second direction (second input) is detected by the second position detection unit. The driving force (which is a force to operate = signal) in the first direction (first driving force = first signal) and the resistance force in the first direction; as well as the driving force in the second direction the driving force in the second direction (second driving force = second signal) and the resistance force in the second direction (second resistance force) are applied to the operating unit are adjusted according to the positions detected by these detection units [(para 0009)].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Ungermann, to include wherein the switch is configured to generate the first signal in response to the first input to the switch physically moving the switch in the first direction, and wherein the switch is configured to generate the second signal in response to the second input to the switch physically moving the switch in the second direction, as suggested and taught by ‘935, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a switch or operating device performing control that provides precise, stable operation and a fine feeling of operation.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected as Claim 7, see above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, the Applicant amended Claims 1 and 12 to overcome Ungermann.
Applicant argues, Ungermann discloses that deceleration during manual braking by an operation of a parking brake is greater than deceleration during an emergency stop operation (autonomous emergency stop maneuver), and the emergency stop maneuver follows a single deceleration profile without a distinction between automatic and manual. Applicant respectfully asserts that Ungermann fails to disclose that a first deceleration during a manual emergency stop through a first input and a second input to a switch is smaller than a second deceleration during an emergency stop automatically executed without a switch input.
For the Examiners understanding, the instant application discloses when vehicle is manually (use of a switch) emergency stopped, the deceleration is smaller than if it is “autonomously (no switch inputs)” emergency stopped. That is a first deceleration rate and a second, but as stated about, that is two different types of emergency stopping.
The instant application includes autonomous driving in both emergency stopping cases. However the emergency stopping of by use of the switch is the emergency stopping that has the slower and less abrupt (no jerk) deceleration. See instant application p0060 – 0062.
Ungermann has a first input – signal, when the actuation of switch BE is actuated at t.sub.1, the signal is sent to the controller. Triggering of the emergency stop function when the actuation of the parking brake operator control element ends is carried out only when the parking brake operator control element BE is again triggered at t.sub.2 [see Fig. 3 and p0057-p0063].
Also, Ungermann teaches that an emergency stop function is different that an emergency stop maneuver. The emergency stop function is triggered manually by an occupant, for example, by a switch (BE) in the center console [see p0007, and Fig 1].
The emergency stop maneuver, for example, is a brake failure, which is actuated by the hydraulic brake system [p0013].
The emergency stop function in Ungermann is what is being used to compare the recitations of the instant application. Ungermann discloses, the maximum deceleration during the manual braking of the vehicle is preferably greater than the maximum deceleration during the emergency stop maneuver, with the result that, for example, rapid braking can be ensured in an emergency stop situation in which the brake pedal has failed.
Said another way, when the emergency stopping is performed (manual braking using the switch) in response to the second signal, the driving controller is further configured to decelerate the vehicle at a first deceleration rate that is less than a second deceleration rate used when the emergency stopping is automatically performed without the first signal and the second signal being generated by the switch (without actuating switch BE), manual braking using the hydraulic brake is used and a different deceleration rate or second rate occurs.
Also, Ungermann does not just function when the brake pedal fails. The Ungermann disclosure fully teaches an emergency stopping function as a driver assistance function assisting when the drivers condition information such as alertness and fitness is determined [see p0034 – p0038].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oba (US 20170305440)
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 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.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights