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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 22nd 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed on December 22nd 2023.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 26 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This action is Final in response to the applicant’s filing on September 23rd 2025.
Claims 1-6 are canceled.
Claims 7-18 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Examiner maintains their position that Gowda does not teach away from a takeover request because Gowda explicitly provides for a user to operate the vehicle; “…the vehicle operations systems 114 can completely autonomously operate the vehicle, or may have limited autonomy that requires feedback from a user… the driver can adjust their braking speed, increase their velocity, or change lanes…” [See Gowda paragraph 0025 and 0043]. The court stated that; "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id. [ See MPEP 2143.01. I]; further In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [See MPEP 2123 II]
Furthermore examiner recognizes that the issue BRI of “takeover request” is broadly defined in specification and reasonably interpreted to include at least a scenario where a driver operates the vehicle namely in the context of modifying speed, trajectory, and / or steering etc…[Gowda paragraph 0043] “the driver can adjust their braking speed, increase their velocity, or change lanes…”; and the secondary reference explicitly discloses take over to control parameters to avoid an unsafe situation as the case would be in a tailgating scenario; “The takeover request can be automatically output by the auxiliary system or transmitted to the driver. The takeover requirement is an instruction to the driver that he must take over control of the motor vehicle, or at least must be prepared to take over control of the motor vehicle without delay. Once a dangerous situation has been identified or once the vehicle is approaching a dangerous situation, until the preset time minimum distance and/or space minimum distance is reached, then a takeover requirement can be output according to the situation, for example. The output time point required by the output takeover may be related, that is, selected in relation to what action the driver is doing at a specific point in time before reaching the dangerous situation.” [Schoning paragraph 0027].
Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC § 103 has been maintained.
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.
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.
1. Claims 7-11, 13-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda (Patent No. US20190389487A1) in view of Schoning (Patent No. CN111183083A).
Regarding claim 7 Gowda teaches a method comprising: operating a vehicle in an automated driving operation, wherein during the operating of the vehicle in the automated driving operation, the method further comprises continuously monitoring a vehicle rear space of the vehicle; (See Gowda paragraph 0011 and 0012; “Methods and systems disclosed herein provide a warning in the case tailgating is detected. For some embodiments, vehicles described herein may also include automatic driving features that react to tailgating in a manner to improve safety of the passengers… a vehicle may include sonar, radar, cameras, other imaging devices, or additional sensors that scan an area surrounding the car… the vehicle includes a rear radar system. The radar can detect objects in a field of view to the rear of the vehicle.”); outputting a warning to a following vehicle responsive to the continuously monitoring indicating that the following vehicle is coming critically close to the vehicle; (See Gowda paragraph 0013; “…in response to determining that the vehicle is not following at a safe distance, the tailgating alert system can provide an alert to the driver… The display unit can receive an indication from the tailgating alert system of the potentially dangerous situation and provide a warning to the driver that a vehicle is not following at a safe distance… the vehicle also includes a rear display on a back panel. The rear display can also be used to provide a warning to the trailing car that it is too close for safe operation... “); and transmitting, responsive to the following vehicle continuing to come critically close to the vehicle after a period of time; (See Gowda paragraph 0033; “…the tailgating alert system 150 may automatically change the driving behavior of the vehicle. For example, tailgating alert system 150 may provide output to the vehicle operations systems 114 to avoid the unsafe driving conditions. Depending on the scenario this can include depressing an accelerator or otherwise accelerating the vehicle until there is a threshold safe distance between the vehicles. For some situations, the tailgating alert system 150 can cause the vehicle operations system 114 to merge left or right to allow the following vehicle to pass. This can be done automatically or after requesting authorization from a driver depending on the level of autonomous driving.”).
Gowda does not explicitly teach but Schoning teaches, takeover request relating to a driving task to a vehicle user of the vehicle; (See Schoning paragraph 0027; “The takeover request can be automatically output by the auxiliary system or transmitted to the driver. The takeover requirement is an instruction to the driver that he must take over control of the motor vehicle, or at least must be prepared to take over control of the motor vehicle without delay. Once a dangerous situation has been identified or once the vehicle is approaching a dangerous situation, until the preset time minimum distance and/or space minimum distance is reached, then a takeover requirement can be output according to the situation, for example. The output time point required by the output takeover may be related, that is, selected in relation to what action the driver is doing at a specific point in time before reaching the dangerous situation.”).
Both Gowda and Schoning are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Gowda operating a vehicle in an automated driving operation with Schoning takeover request. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Gowda by adding addition function to takeover with more complex tasks. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8 please see the rejection above with respect to claim 7 which is commensurate in scope to claim 8 with both claim 7 and 8 being drawn to invention method, except for following limitation; wherein, responsive to a determination that the driving task is not taken over after a further period of time, a current driving speed of the vehicle is reduced by a value until the following vehicle is no longer coming critically close to the vehicle; (See Gowda paragraph 0033; “…the tailgating alert system 150 may automatically change the driving behavior of the vehicle. For example, tailgating alert system 150 may provide output to the vehicle operations systems 114 to avoid the unsafe driving conditions. Depending on the scenario this can include depressing an accelerator or otherwise accelerating the vehicle until there is a threshold safe distance between the vehicles. For some situations, the tailgating alert system 150 can cause the vehicle operations system 114 to merge left or right to allow the following vehicle to pass. This can be done automatically or after requesting authorization from a driver depending on the level of autonomous driving.”).
Regarding claim 9 please see the rejection above with respect to claim 7 which is commensurate in scope to claim 8 with both claim 7 and 8 being drawn to invention method, except for following limitation; wherein, after the further period of time has elapsed, the vehicle is controlled such that the vehicle moves into a right edge region within the vehicle's lane in right- hand traffic or into a left edge region within the vehicle's lane in left-hand traffic; (See Gowda paragraph 0033 and 0041; “…For example, tailgating alert system 150 may provide output to the vehicle operations systems 114 to avoid the unsafe driving conditions. Depending on the scenario this can include depressing an accelerator or otherwise accelerating the vehicle until there is a threshold safe distance between the vehicles. For some situations, the tailgating alert system 150 can cause the vehicle operations system 114 to merge left or right to allow the following vehicle to pass.…If vehicle 250 is closer than a safe stopping distance, and within a closer threshold distance or for longer than a threshold period of time, the tailgating alert system 240 may generate an alert to move over and allow the rear vehicle 250 to pass.”).
Regarding claim 10 Gowda in view of Schoning teaches the method of claim 7, Gowda further teaches wherein the warning is output to the following vehicle as a text message on a display unit arranged at a rear of the vehicle; (See Gowda paragraph 0013; “…in response to determining that the vehicle is not following at a safe distance, the tailgating alert system can provide an alert to the driver… The display unit can receive an indication from the tailgating alert system of the potentially dangerous situation and provide a warning to the driver that a vehicle is not following at a safe distance… the vehicle also includes a rear display on a back panel. The rear display can also be used to provide a warning to the trailing car that it is too close for safe operation... “).
Regarding claim 11 Gowda in view of Schoning teaches the method of claim 7, Gowda further teaches, wherein the warning is transmitted to the following vehicle by a vehicle-to-vehicle communication; (See Gowda paragraph 0034; “For some embodiments, the tailgating alert system 150 can also provide an alert to the following vehicle. For example, the following and lead vehicles may be of the same manufacturer or otherwise able to connect wirelessly. For example, the computer 112 may communicate through user account 104 to connect to the following vehicle. The following vehicle can then receive data from the computer 112 indicating that it is closer than a safe distance. Accordingly, the following vehicle may generate a display to an interface…”).
Regarding claim 13 Gowda in view of Schoning teaches the method of claim 8, Gowda further teaches, wherein the warning is output to the following vehicle as a text message on a display unit arranged at a rear of the vehicle; (See Gowda paragraph 0032;” For some embodiments, the vehicle includes a rear facing display (e.g., on or as part of the bumper of the vehicle) that can also display an alert. For example, if a vehicle is following too closely, the bumper can display changing LED lights, an image indicating to increase the distance, text output indicating to slow down, or another alert.”).
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 17, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 11 which is commensurate in scope to claims 14 and 17, with claim 11 being drown to a method, and claims 14 and 17 being drawn to the invention method as well.
With respect to dependent claim 16, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 13 which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 13 being drown to a method, and claim 16 being drawn to the invention method as well.
2. Claims 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowda (Patent No. US20190389487A1) in view of Schoning (Patent No. CN111183083A) and Kunberger (Patent No. DE102018204572A1).
Regarding claim 12 Gowda in view of Schoning teaches the method of claim 7, Gowda does not teach but Kunberger teaches, wherein the period of time before the takeover request is output to the vehicle is at least 30 seconds; (See Kunberger paragraph 0028; “…the driver must be able to take over vehicle control within a certain period of time…”).
Both Gowda and Kunberger are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Gowda operating a vehicle in an automated driving operation with Kunberger time constrain for vehicle takeover. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Gowda by adding time constrain to vehicle takeover to prevent the collision from following vehicle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 18, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 12 which is commensurate in scope to claims 15 and 18, with claim 12 being drown to a method, and claims 15 and 18 being drawn to the invention method as well.
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 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 LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 A. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights