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 .
Response to Amendment
RCE filed on 1/23/26 has have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Fu (US PG Pub No. 2017/0355367).
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches A vehicle system of a vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle; (108 hand detection device paragraph 34)
determine whether a driver of the vehicle is touching a steering wheel of the vehicle based on the sensor data; (paragraph 34 108 figure 1 sense holding force via deformation of steering wheel)
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the steering wheel, perform shared lateral control of the vehicle; and (Paragraph 37 figure 1 114 open loop signal; lane departure prevention functions) in which the vehicle system and the driver are both able to perform lateral control of the vehicle at the same time (paragraph 37 open loop represents both able to do lateral control. Lan departure prevention functions)
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the steering wheel, perform traded lateral control of the vehicle (paragraph 36 figure 1 112 closed loop for autonomous center guidance of vehicle where vehicle is automatically in center of lane) in which only one of the vehicle system and the driver are able to perform lateral control of the vehicle at a time. (examiner states that this will naturally occur as if thehand is not on the wheel driver physically cannot steer the car)
Regarding claim 3, Fu teaches wherein the one or more sensors measure a torque associated with the steering wheel (paragraph 14 manual steering torque).
Regarding claim 4, Fu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform shared lateral control of the vehicle by performing lane keeping assistance; and (paragraph 37)
perform traded lateral control of the vehicle by performing lane tracing assistance (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 5, Fu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform shared lateral control of the vehicle by performing lateral control such that a centrifugal force on the vehicle remains below a predetermined amount; and (paragraph 46 figure 2 202 206 steering profiles; if driver would like to steer a little then select 202 no dead zone)
perform traded lateral control of the vehicle by performing lateral control without a limit to the centrifugal force on the vehicle (104 figure 1 and 2 paragraph 44 in closed loop mode there is not steering torque limit as the hands are off the wheel).
Regarding claim 7, Fu teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
while performing traded lateral control, determine whether the driver touches the steering wheel; and
upon determination that the driver touches the steering wheel, perform shared lateral control (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 12, 14-16 see the rejection to claims 1, 3-5 as the limitations are substantially similar.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US PG Pub No. 2017/0355367) in view of Fujikawa et al (US PG Pub No. 2015/033091)
Regarding claim 2, Fu does not explicitly teach however Fujikawa teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more capacitance sensors that detect when the driver of the vehicle is touching the steering wheel (15 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Fujikawa to teach wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more capacitance sensors that detect when the driver of the vehicle is touching the steering wheel. The motication would be to efficiently determine driver is gripping the wheel (abstract Fujikawa)
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection to claim 2 as the limitations are substantially similar.
.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohrer et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0180623) in view of Wang (US PG Pub No. 2023/0050705)
Regarding claim 8, Bohrer teaches vehicle system of a vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive sensor data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle; (220 figure 2 paragraph 20 and 21)
determine whether a driver of the vehicle is touching an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal based on the sensor data; (304 figure 3 are gas and brake pedal released 3 yes paragraph 22)
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, perform shared longitudinal control of the vehicle; and (316 and 322 figure 3 paragraph 25) in which the vehicle system and the driver are both able to perform longitudinal control of the vehicle at the same time (paragraph 24 if activation and release are within close tie of each other… it may use speed gap to set new speed or distance…note in 316 figure 3 the ACC system is on the entire time 310 figure 3)
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, perform traded longitudinal control of the vehicle (310 figure 3 paragraph 22 driver assist activated)
Bohrer does not explicitly teach however Wang teaches when the driver is not touching the pedals… performing traded longitudinal control of vehicle in which only one of the vehicle system and the driver are able to perform longitudinal control of the vehicle at a time. (paragraph 57 ignore driver request to disengage cruise control if driver foot not on accelerator pedal. 500 paragraph 47 and 48 business as usual smart cruise control is on)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Bohrer based on the teachings of Wang to teach when the driver is not touching the pedals… performing traded longitudinal control of vehicle… in which only one of the vehicle system and the driver are able to perform longitudinal control of the vehicle at a time. The motivation would be to prevent collision if cruise control disengagement is deemed unsafe (Wang paragraph 57)
Regarding claim 9, Bohrer teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera that captures an image of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 10, Bohrer teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform shared longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing forward collision avoidance assistance; and (316 and 322 parapgahr 25 imples that forward collision is already active)
perform traded longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing adaptive cruise control (310 figure 3 paragraph 22 driver assistance activated).
Regarding claim 11, Bohrer teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
while performing traded longitudinal control, determine whether the driver touches the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal; and (310 figure 3)
upon determination that the driver touches the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, perform shared longitudinal control (316 and 322 figure 3)
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US PG Pub No. 2017/0355367) in view of Jang (US PG Pub No. 2017/0096063)
Regarding claim 6, Fu does not explicitly teach however Jang teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine, based on the sensor data, whether the driver has not touched the steering wheel for more than a predetermined amount of time; and (S12, S15 to 16 figure 4 paragraph 44-45 driver does not grip wheel so LKA is deactivated)
upon determination that the driver has not touched the steering wheel for more than the predetermined amount of time, perform traded lateral control of the vehicle (paragraph 30 figure 2 speed above 50 kph ACC on LDW is on faster than 50kph where LKA is on paragraph 31. Examiner interprets that LKA is on but deactivated because driver has not touched wheel. So therefore revert back to LDW).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Jang to teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, whether the driver has not touched the steering wheel for more than a predetermined amount of time; and upon determination that the driver has not touched the steering wheel for more than the predetermined amount of time, perform traded lateral control of the vehicle. The motivation would be to ensure driver doesn’t fall asleep at wheel
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection to claim 6 as the limitations are substantially similar.
.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US PG Pub No. 2017/0355367) in view of Wang (US PG Pub No. 2023/0050705).
Regarding claim 18, Fu does not explicitly teach however Wang teaches
determining whether the driver of the vehicle is touching an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal based on the sensor data;
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle; and
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle. (see claim 8 Wang)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of wang to teach determining whether the driver of the vehicle is touching an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal based on the sensor data; upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle; and upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation od ADAS (Wang paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 19, Fu does not explicitly teach however Wang teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera that captures an image of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal (see claim 9 wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Wang to teach wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera that captures an image of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation od ADAS (Wang paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 20, Fu does not explicitly teach however Wang teaches
performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing forward collision avoidance assistance; and
performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing adaptive cruise control. (see claim 10 wang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Wang to teach performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing forward collision avoidance assistance; and performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing adaptive cruise control. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation od ADAS (Wang paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu (US PG Pub No. 2017/0355367) in view of Bohrer et al (US PG Pub No. 2020/0180623)
Regarding claim 18, Fu does not explicitly teach however Bohrar teaches
determining whether the driver of the vehicle is touching an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal based on the sensor data;
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle; and
upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle. (see claim 8 Bohrar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Bohrar to teach determining whether the driver of the vehicle is touching an accelerator pedal or a brake pedal based on the sensor data; upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle; and upon determination that the driver of the vehicle is not touching the accelerator pedal or the brake pedal, performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation of ADAS (Bohrar abstract)
Regarding claim 19, Fu does not explicitly teach however Bohrar teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera that captures an image of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal (see claim 9 Bohrar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Bohrar to teach wherein the one or more sensors comprise a camera that captures an image of the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation of ADAS (Bohrar abstract)
Regarding claim 20, Fu does not explicitly teach however Bohrar teaches
performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing forward collision avoidance assistance; and
performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing adaptive cruise control. (see claim 10 Bohrar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Fu based on the teachings of Bohrar to teach performing shared longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing forward collision avoidance assistance; and performing traded longitudinal control of the vehicle by performing adaptive cruise control. The motivation would be to ensure safe deactivation of ADAS (Bohrar abstract)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 12, see the rejection above as the new limitations are rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights