DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 12, 2025. Claims 1 – 2, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Republic of Korea on August 10, 2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for amended claims 1 – 2 and 15, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 - 20 under Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 102 and / or 35 U.S.C. § 103 are discussed below.
Applicant’s response arguments, with regards to claims, filed on November 12, 2025 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under the combination of Yurdana in view of Harrington, and further in view of Qureshi which are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Please see detailed rejections below.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, and 15 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0339157 A1 to YURDANA et al. (herein after “Yurdana) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0174451 A1 to HARRINGTON et al. (herein after "Harrington").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Yurdana’s accident avoidance information communication system to autonomous vehicles discloses an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a host vehicle (see Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a general arrangement of a control apparatus 102 for autonomous driving vehicle 100 and
PNG
media_image1.png
774
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
¶0036 and ¶0054; Yurdana ~ autonomous vehicle 100 includes automatic control in particular of braking and/or steering), the apparatus comprising:
a sensor device (see Fig. 1 and ¶0052; Yurdana ~ sensor 104);
a memory configured to store instructions (see Figs.1 - 2 and ¶0059; Yurdana ~ controller 102 comprises a memory 216); and
a controller operatively connected to the sensor device and the memory (see Fig. 2; Yurdana ~ illustrates sensor communications interface 202 being interactively coupled with memory 216 within the overall schematic of controller 102),
PNG
media_image2.png
766
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller (see Fig. 1 ~ controller 140), cause the controller to
identify other vehicle driving information including at least one of a relative speed between the host vehicle and a front vehicle, a relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, an acceleration of the front vehicle, an average deceleration amount of a rear vehicle driving behind the host vehicle, an instantaneous maximum deceleration amount of the rear vehicle, a deceleration timing of the rear vehicle, or a combination thereof, wherein the front vehicle is a vehicle driving in front of the host vehicle and the rear vehicle is a vehicle driving behind the host vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana ~ “the safety analyzer 214 determines the values for the velocity, acceleration, and deceleration parameters… based on feedback from the sensors 104… by other vehicles… in the vicinity of the vehicle 100… following behind a truck), and
perform emergency stop control on the host vehicle by using at least a part of the other vehicle driving information. (See ¶0036 ~ "If the sensor feedback ( as analyzed by the environment analyzer 208 ) indicates a vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle 100 is within the safe longitudinal distance, the safe driving rule defined by Equation 1 has been violated and the safety analyzer 214 determines a dangerous situation is present . Such a determination then triggers the initiation of a proper response (e.g. , applying the brakes, steering around the front vehicle, etc.”).
As shown above Yurdana teaches automated vehicle operations in response to a dangerous driving situation presented by a front vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana), but does not explicitly disclose identifying unresponsive state duration of a user within the host vehicle.
Pursuant to [0156} of the disclosure, “unresponsive” is akin to "incapacitated", Harrington’s system for improving driver safety and situational awareness discloses identifying unresponsive state duration of a user within the host vehicle. (See Fig. 2 ~ illustrates data collected from vehicle mounted sensors 308 and
PNG
media_image3.png
622
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale
¶0043 ~ "If a non-optimal grip condition is determined… driver incapacitation deduced from both of their hands being off the steering wheel for a prolonged interval, the onboard vehicle system can take proactive steps such as… slowing the vehicle down." Emphasis added).
Yurdana modified with Harrington then teaches performing emergency stop control on the host vehicle by using at least a part of the other vehicle driving information (see ¶0036; Yurdana), when the unresponsive state duration is greater than or equal to a specified time duration (see ¶0043; Harrington).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the emergency braking trigger function within Yurdana’s accident avoidance information communication system to autonomous vehicles, with the steering wheel – driver’s hands-on detection, as taught by Harrington, to allow for recognizing when the driver does not have their hand(s) on the steering wheel while the vehicle is in motion, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
As to Claim 2,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
When the unresponsive state duration is greater than or equal to the specified time duration (see ¶0043; Harrington), perform the emergency stop control by using the front vehicle driving information (see ¶0036; Yurdana) and the rear vehicle driving information. (see ¶0035 - ¶0036; Yurdana)
As to Claim 5,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana) when one or both of i) a hands-off state of the host vehicle is identified for a first time duration or longer or ii) a direction in which the user faces as identified by using the sensor device is not included in a specified direction for a second time duration or longer while the host vehicle is controlled based on an in-cabin-camera (ICC). (See ¶0043; Harrington).
As to Claim 15,
Yurdana discloses a method for autonomous driving control of a host vehicle (see Fig. 6 ~ outlines a process control flowchart wherein the automated driving features of a vehicle are controlled when a dangerous driving situation induced created by other surrounding vehicles is detected
PNG
media_image4.png
820
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
¶0067 and ¶0070~ autonomous vehicle 100 includes automatic control in particular of braking and/or steering), the method comprising:
identifying, by a controller using a sensor device, other vehicle driving information including at least one of a relative speed between the host vehicle and a front vehicle, a relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, an acceleration of the front vehicle, an average deceleration amount of a rear vehicle of the host vehicle, an instantaneous maximum deceleration amount of the rear vehicle, a deceleration timing of the rear vehicle, or a combination thereof, wherein the front vehicle is a vehicle driving in front of the host vehicle and the rear vehicle is a vehicle driving behind the host vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana); and
perform emergency stop control on the host vehicle by using at least a part of the other vehicle driving information. (See ¶0036 ~ "If the sensor feedback ( as analyzed by the environment analyzer 208 ) indicates a vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle 100 is within the safe longitudinal distance, the safe driving rule defined by Equation 1 has been violated and the safety analyzer 214 determines a dangerous situation is present . Such a determination then triggers the initiation of a proper response (e.g. , applying the brakes, steering around the front vehicle, etc.”).
As shown above Yurdana teaches automated vehicle operations in response to a dangerous driving situation presented by a front vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana), but does not explicitly disclose identifying unresponsive state duration of a user within the host vehicle.
Pursuant to [0156} of the disclosure, “unresponsive” is akin to "incapacitated", Harrington’s system for improving driver safety and situational awareness discloses identifying unresponsive state duration of a user within the host vehicle. (See Fig. 2 ~ illustrates data collected from vehicle mounted sensors 308 and ¶0043 ~ "If a non-optimal grip condition is determined… driver incapacitation deduced from both of their hands being off the steering wheel for a prolonged interval, the onboard vehicle system can take proactive steps such as… slowing the vehicle down." Emphasis added).
Yurdana modified with Harrington then teaches performing emergency stop control on the host vehicle by using at least a part of the other vehicle driving information (see ¶0036; Yurdana), when the unresponsive state duration is greater than or equal to a specified time duration (see ¶0043; Harrington).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the emergency braking trigger function within Yurdana’s accident avoidance information communication system to autonomous vehicles, with the steering wheel – driver’s hands-on detection, as taught by Harrington, to allow for recognizing when the driver does not have their hand(s) on the steering wheel while the vehicle is in motion, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
As to Claim 16,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the method of claim 15, wherein performing the emergency stop control on the host vehicle includes:
performing, by the controller, the emergency stop control on the host vehicle (see ¶0036; Yurdana) when one or both of i) a hands-off state of the host vehicle is identified for a first time duration or longer or ii) a direction in which the user faces as identified by using the sensor device is not included in a specified direction for a second time duration or longer while the host vehicle is controlled based on an in-cabin-camera (ICC). (See ¶0043; Harrington).
identifying, by the controller, unresponsive state duration of a user within the host vehicle. (See Fig. 2 of Harrington ~ illustrates data collected from vehicle mounted sensors 308 and ¶0043 of Harrington ~ "If a non-optimal grip condition is determined… driver incapacitation deduced from both of their hands being off the steering wheel for a prolonged interval, the onboard vehicle system can take proactive steps such as… slowing the vehicle down." Emphasis added); and
when the unresponsive state duration is greater than or equal to a specified time duration (see ¶0043;Harrington), performing, by the controller, emergency stop control on the host vehicle by using at least a part of the other vehicle driving information. (See ¶0036;Yurdana).
Claim 6 – 7 and 17 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0339157 A1 to YURDANA et al. (herein after “Yurdana) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0174451 A1 to HARRINGTON et al. (herein after "Harrington") as to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2024/0308501 A1 to QURESHI et al. (herein after "Qureshi").
As to Claim 6,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Yurdana/Harrington does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle are not present, perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a predetermined basic deceleration; and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a first jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the predetermined basic deceleration.
Qureshi’s system for optimal engagement of automated features to assist incapacitated drivers is relied upon to disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle are not present, perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a predetermined basic deceleration (see Qureshi discloses emergency braking in order to teaching emergency stop control (~ emergency braking) as in ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098, on the host vehicle when it is determined that the other vehicle driving information ~ i.e., collision potential ~ is computed as a threat to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill will recognize and appreciate that emergency braking is oftentimes accompanied with rapid deceleration manifesting as non-smooth, rapid deceleration of the vehicle ~ equivalent to a "jerk" or feeling of discomfort to the driver; albeit that the driver is protected by this emergency braking as a result. Specifically Qureshi teaches and/or suggests "jerk deceleration" in ¶0033); and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a first jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the predetermined basic deceleration. (See ¶0072 ~ Qureshi discloses "corresponding braking... and/or deceleration... by the braking system... the process 200 either repeats in a new iteration (e.g., if the vehicle 100 is still operating in a current vehicle drive) or terminates at step 234 (e.g., when the current vehicle drive is over; thereby teaching a plurality of repeated "jerk decelerations", as described herein ~ emergency braking -- as needed in order to protect the overall safety of the vehicle driver.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify and/or combine Yurdana/Harrington with Qureshi’s system for optimal engagement of automated features to assist incapacitated drivers, as taught by Qureshi, to allow for emergency braking control based upon the absence of an absence of a plurality of surrounding other vehicles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
As to Claim 7,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Yurdana/Harrington does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that the front vehicle is present and the rear vehicle is not present, identify a first required deceleration for the emergency stop control by using at least one of the relative speed between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the acceleration of the front vehicle, or a combination thereof perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a smaller value of a predetermined basic deceleration and the first required deceleration; and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a second jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the smaller value.
Quereshi, on the other hand, discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that the front vehicle is present and the rear vehicle is not present, identify a first required deceleration for the emergency stop control by using at least one of the relative speed between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the acceleration of the front vehicle, or a combination thereof (see ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098 of Qureshi);
perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a smaller value of a predetermined basic deceleration and the first required deceleration (see ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098 of Qureshi); and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a second jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the smaller value. (See ¶0072 ~ Qureshi discloses "corresponding braking... and/or deceleration... by the braking system... the process 200 either repeats in a new iteration (e.g., if the vehicle 100 is still operating in a current vehicle drive) or terminates at step 234 (e.g., when the current vehicle drive is over; thereby teaching a plurality of repeated "jerk decelerations", as described herein ~ emergency braking -- as needed in order to protect the overall safety of the vehicle driver.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify and/or combine Yurdana/Harrington with Qureshi’s system for optimal engagement of automated features to assist incapacitated drivers, as taught by Qureshi, to allow for emergency braking control based upon the absence of an absence of a plurality of surrounding other vehicles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
As to Claim 17,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the method of claim 15.
However, Yurdana/Harrington does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle are not present, perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a predetermined basic deceleration; and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a first jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the predetermined basic deceleration.
Conversely, Qureshi discloses the method when it is identified that both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle are not present, perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a predetermined basic deceleration (see Qureshi discloses emergency braking in order to teaching emergency stop control (~ emergency braking) as in ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098, on the host vehicle when it is determined that the other vehicle driving information ~ i.e., collision potential ~ is computed as a threat to the host vehicle. One of ordinary skill will recognize and appreciate that emergency braking is oftentimes accompanied with rapid deceleration manifesting as non-smooth, rapid deceleration of the vehicle ~ equivalent to a "jerk" or feeling of discomfort to the driver; albeit that the driver is protected by this emergency braking as a result. Specifically Qureshi teaches and/or suggests "jerk deceleration" in ¶0033); and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a first jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the predetermined basic deceleration. (See ¶0072 ~ Qureshi discloses "corresponding braking... and/or deceleration... by the braking system... the process 200 either repeats in a new iteration (e.g., if the vehicle 100 is still operating in a current vehicle drive) or terminates at step 234 (e.g., when the current vehicle drive is over; thereby teaching a plurality of repeated "jerk decelerations", as described herein ~ emergency braking -- as needed in order to protect the overall safety of the vehicle driver.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify and/or combine Yurdana/Harrington with Qureshi’s system for optimal engagement of automated features to assist incapacitated drivers, as taught by Qureshi, to allow for emergency braking control based upon the absence of an absence of a plurality of surrounding other vehicles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
As to Claim 18,
Yurdana/Harrington substantially discloses the method of claim 15.
However, Yurdana/Harrington does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that the front vehicle is present and the rear vehicle is not present, identify a first required deceleration for the emergency stop control by using at least one of the relative speed between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the acceleration of the front vehicle, or a combination thereof perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a smaller value of a predetermined basic deceleration and the first required deceleration; and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a second jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the smaller value.
Quereshi, on the other hand, discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to:
when it is identified that the front vehicle is present and the rear vehicle is not present, identify a first required deceleration for the emergency stop control by using at least one of the relative speed between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the relative distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle, the acceleration of the front vehicle, or a combination thereof (see ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098 of Qureshi);
perform the emergency stop control on the host vehicle based on a smaller value of a predetermined basic deceleration and the first required deceleration (see ¶0009, ¶0023, and ¶0098 of Qureshi); and
while performing the emergency stop control, control driving of the host vehicle by repeatedly and periodically using a second jerk deceleration having a value that is greater than the smaller value. (See ¶0072 ~ Qureshi discloses "corresponding braking... and/or deceleration... by the braking system... the process 200 either repeats in a new iteration (e.g., if the vehicle 100 is still operating in a current vehicle drive) or terminates at step 234 (e.g., when the current vehicle drive is over; thereby teaching a plurality of repeated "jerk decelerations", as described herein ~ emergency braking -- as needed in order to protect the overall safety of the vehicle driver.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify and/or combine Yurdana/Harrington with Qureshi’s system for optimal engagement of automated features to assist incapacitated drivers, as taught by Qureshi, to allow for emergency braking control based upon the absence of an absence of a plurality of surrounding other vehicles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: modifies driver behavior and enhances driver safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 4, 8 - 14, and 19 – 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.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1 and 15 may potentially advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661