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
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/15/2025. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. The specification has been amended. The objections to the claims and the specification have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano (US 20200238993) in view of Stabrey (US 20100045101).
Regarding claim 1, Urano teaches a method for deactivating an assisted or automated driving function in a motor vehicle (par. 6, switching the driving state), the method comprising the following steps:
carrying out, by the driving function, a driver-independent braking intervention (par. 6, “an autonomous driving state where the traveling of the vehicle is controlled using the traveling plan”);
and deactivating the driving function when: a driver actuates a braking request presetting device (par. 8, brake pedal), wherein a duration of actuation by the driver is between a lower limit value (par. 7, first threshold value) and an upper limit value (par. 7, second threshold value) (par. 7, “the duration count is equal to or greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the driving state is switched to the cooperative driving state by the driving state switching unit”—the autonomous driving state is ‘turned off’ and replaced by the cooperative driving state);
or the driver actuates the braking request presetting device in such a way that an intensity of the braking requested by the driver (par. 8, pedal position of a brake pedal) is greater than an intensity of a braking (par. 8, control target value of the brake pedal) exerted by the driving function (par. 8, “when a pedal position of a brake pedal of the vehicle moves according to a control target value of the brake pedal included in the traveling plan, the driving operation information acquisition unit may acquire the difference between a pedal position detection value of the brake pedal of the vehicle and the control target value of the brake pedal included in the traveling plan as an operation amount of the brake operation”).
Urano fails to teach the driving function maintains deceleration until the deceleration achieved by the driver exceeds the deceleration exerted by the driving function.
However, Stabrey teaches the driving function maintains deceleration until the deceleration achieved by the driver exceeds the deceleration exerted by the driving function (par. 5, “the safety function is terminated if the braking pressure specified by the driver or the braking pressure corresponding to the brake-pedal position is greater than the braking pressure currently generated by the safety function”—therefore, the safety function continues as long as the driver’s braking pressure is less than the safety function’s braking pressure).
Urano and Stabrey are analogous art because both relate to a method or device that deactivates a driver assistance system via braking.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Stabrey so that when the driver wants to deactivate the safety function and take control of the vehicle, “the deactivation therefore has no or only negligible effects on the vehicle movement since the braking action initially generated by the system is continued by the driver” (par. 18).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Urano further teaches the assisted or automated driving function is a distance and/or speed control function (par. 6, “autonomous driving state where the traveling of the vehicle is controlled using the traveling plan”—the autonomous driving system also controls distance and speed).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Urano further teaches the braking request presetting device is a brake pedal (par. 8, “the driving operation information acquisition unit may acquire the difference between a pedal position detection value of the brake pedal of the vehicle and the control target value of the brake pedal included in the traveling plan as an operation amount of the brake operation”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Urano further teaches the intensity of the braking is a braking force (par. 49, “The brake pedal sensor may detect the operation force (the depression force to the brake pedal, the pressure of a master cylinder, or the like) of the brake pedal. The brake pedal sensor outputs operation information according to the depression amount or operation force of the brake pedal to the ECU 10”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Urano further teaches the intensity of the braking is the braking torque (par. 38, “As shown in FIG. 1, the autonomous driving vehicle system 100 is mounted in a vehicle V, such as a passenger car”).
Regarding claim 8, Urano teaches a device including a control unit (Fig. 1, ECU 10) configured to deactivate an assisted or automated driving function in a motor vehicle (par. 6, switching the driving state), the driving function carrying out a driver-independent braking intervention (par. 6, “an autonomous driving state where the traveling of the vehicle is controlled using the traveling plan”), the control unit configured to:
deactivate the driving function when: the driver actuates a braking request presetting device (par. 8, brake pedal), wherein a duration of actuation by the driver is between a lower limit value (par. 7, first threshold value) and an upper limit value (par. 7, second threshold value) (par. 7, “the duration count is equal to or greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the driving state is switched to the cooperative driving state by the driving state switching unit”—the autonomous driving state is ‘turned off’ and replaced by the cooperative driving state);
or the driver actuates the braking request presetting device in such a way that an intensity of the braking requested by the driver (par. 8, pedal position of a brake pedal) is greater than an intensity of a braking (par. 8, control target value of the brake pedal) exerted by the driving function (par. 8, “when a pedal position of a brake pedal of the vehicle moves according to a control target value of the brake pedal included in the traveling plan, the driving operation information acquisition unit may acquire the difference between a pedal position detection value of the brake pedal of the vehicle and the control target value of the brake pedal included in the traveling plan as an operation amount of the brake operation”).
Urano fails to teach the driving function maintains deceleration until the deceleration achieved by the driver exceeds the deceleration exerted by the driving function.
However, Stabrey teaches the driving function maintains deceleration until the deceleration achieved by the driver exceeds the deceleration exerted by the driving function (par. 5, “the safety function is terminated if the braking pressure specified by the driver or the braking pressure corresponding to the brake-pedal position is greater than the braking pressure currently generated by the safety function”—therefore, the safety function continues as long as the driver’s braking pressure is less than the safety function’s braking pressure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Urano to incorporate the teachings of Stabrey so that when the driver wants to deactivate the safety function and take control of the vehicle, “the deactivation therefore has no or only negligible effects on the vehicle movement since the braking action initially generated by the system is continued by the driver” (par. 18).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano in view of Stabrey, and further in view of Braunagel (US 10766497).
the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Both Urano and Stabrey fails to teach the intensity of the braking is the braking torque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Braunagel teaches the intensity of the braking is the braking torque (column 2 line 49, “the driving function is deactivated when the driver requests a braking torque by the brake pedal actuation, the braking torque being greater than the deactivation threshold assigned to the brake engagement”).
Urano and Braunagel are analogous art because both relate to a method or device that deactivates a driver assistance system via braking.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey to incorporate the teachings of Braunagel to add the intensity of the braking is the braking torque. The pedal force, as used by Urano, and the braking torque, as used by Braunagel, are both used to measure the intended amount of braking by the driver. Regardless of which method is used to compare the intensity of the driver-independent braking intervention and the driver-actuated braking invention, the conclusion would be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to conclude that both measurements would successfully determine if the driver or the driver assistance system would lead to greater braking.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey and further in view of Hofmann (DE 19620930).
The combination of Urano in view of Stabrey teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Both Urano and Stabrey fails to teach the intensity of the braking is the longitudinal deceleration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hofmann teaches the intensity of the braking is the longitudinal deceleration (claim 2, “Check whether the longitudinal deceleration exceeds a specified limit; if yes, switch off the longitudinal control”).
Urano and Hofmann are analogous art because both relate to a method or device that deactivates a driver assistance system via braking.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Urano in view of Stabrey to incorporate the teachings of Hofmann to add the intensity of the braking is the longitudinal deceleration. The pedal force, as used by Urano, and the longitudinal deceleration, as used by Hofmann, are both used to measure the intended amount of braking by the driver. Regardless of which method is used to compare the intensity of the driver-independent braking intervention and the driver-actuated braking invention, the conclusion would be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to conclude that both measurements would successfully determine if the driver or the driver assistance system would lead to greater braking.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665