DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the arguments filed May 29th, 2026. Claims 16-29 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 29th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 was amended to recite “the distribution of response times of [[a]] the driver of the vehicle comprises…” in line 10 of the claim despite the claim previously reciting “distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle,”. As the comma after vehicle was never cancelled in claim 16 like it was in claims 28 and 29, the claim is objected to for not properly marking amendments to the claim.
Appropriate correction is recommended.
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.
Claims 16-21, 25-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Reinisch et al. (US Pub. No. 20120283927 A1), herein after Reinisch, and further in view of Curtis et al. (US Pub. No. 20170072850 A1), herein after Curtis.
Regarding claim 16, Reinisch teaches [a] method for controlling a driving assistance system or a system for at least partially automated driving, comprising the following steps (Reinisch: Para. 0006, teaching that the invention is for assisting the driving of a vehicle): providing measurement data which characterize a traffic situation of a vehicle (Reinisch: Para. 0041, teaching collecting data on the environment such as the location of objects on the road); ascertaining several candidate responses to the traffic situation, wherein the candidate responses each include controlling the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, or suppressing such a control (Reinisch: Para. 0045, teaching determining responses to a traffic event such as a potential collision (autonomous braking)); ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score... [which] indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Reinisch: Para. 0046 and 0049, teaching determining a maximum reaction time of each type of event and the last-possible time for braking or evading based on parameters that denotes the percentage of drivers that can react to the identified events); selecting, using the scores, one of the candidate responses as a response to be carried out (Reinisch: Para. 0050-0052, teaching that the response to the event is selected based on the reaction time of the driver and how much time is left for them to react); and controlling the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, to carry out the selected response (Reinisch: Para. 0054, teaching that the system controls the vehicle based on the response to the traffic event and the driver's reaction time).
Reinisch is silent to the score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings.
In a similar field, Curtis teaches ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings; and the score indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Curtis: Para. 0039, teaching determining imminent driving events for a vehicle including a probability a given driving event occurs and generating a notification to a user when the probability exceeds a threshold; Para. 0028, teaching that the notification is generated based on the user's driving style; and Para. 0060, teaching that the user's driving style is determined based on the user's driving history including their response to a driving event with and without a notification) for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the reaction time of a driver and the appropriate assistance to given in a traffic event from Reinisch to factor in the driver’s historical response to the traffic event with and without a notification, as taught by Curtis, for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
Regarding claim 17, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the candidate responses include: issuing a warning via a physical warning device noticeable by the driver of the vehicle (Reinisch: Para. 0043, teaching warning the driver of the collision object); and/or preparing the vehicle for a braking maneuver and/or an evasive maneuver (Reinisch: Para. 0045, teaching preparing responses to a traffic event such as braking or evading an object); and/or initiating a braking maneuver and/or an evasive maneuver (Reinisch: Para. 0050-0052, teaching braking or evading an object based on the reaction time of the driver and the time to collision).
Regarding claim 18, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the score of at least one of the candidate responses depends on a measure of a prediction of: a probability that the driver of the vehicle has already perceived a hazard in the traffic situation and is able to avert it by themselves; and/or a probability that the driver of the vehicle will still perceive and avert a hazard in the traffic situation; and/or a probability that the vehicle is involved in an accident based on the traffic situation and the candidate response (Reinisch: Para. 0031 and 0032, teaching that the system determines the driving maneuver it should take based on whether the driver perceives the event, whether they can react to the event in time, and whether their reaction to the event would result in a collision).
Regarding claim 19, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 18, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 18, wherein the probability that the driver of the vehicle will still perceive and avert a hazard in the traffic situation depends on the distribution of response times (Reinisch: Para. 0031 and 0032, teaching that the system determines the driving maneuver it should take based on whether the driver perceives the event, whether they can react to the event in time, and whether their reaction to the event would result in a collision).
Regarding claim 20, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the score of at least one of the candidate responses depends on a probability that the driver of the vehicle responds to a warning previously issued to them (Reinisch: Para. 0046, teaching that the reaction time can be based on a percentage of drivers who are able to react in time to the event).
Regarding claim 21, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 20, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 20, wherein the probability that the driver of the vehicle responds to a warning previously issued to them is ascertained as an integral over the distribution of response times ti from the time elapsed since the warning was issued (Reinisch: Para. 0046, teaching that the reaction time can be based on a percentage of drivers who are able to react in time to the event and that the percentage changes as time elapses).
Regarding claim 25, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the distribution of the response times is ascertained from time differences between: (i) determining a hazard in the traffic situation based on the measurement data and/or issuing a warning to the driver of the vehicle, and (ii) determining a response of the driver to the hazard or to the warning (Reinisch: Para. 0046 and 0049, teaching determining a maximum reaction time of each type of event and the last-possible time for braking or evading based on parameters that denotes the percentage of drivers that can react to the identified events).
Regarding claim 26, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the distribution of the response times is ascertained by adapting a parameterized approach to a metrologically recorded state, and/or to a metrologically recorded behavior, of the driver of the vehicle (Reinisch: Para. 0046, teaching that the reaction time can be based on a percentage of drivers who are able to react in time to the event).
Regarding claim 27, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 26, and Reinisch goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 26, wherein, with increasing travel time, and/or in response to a fatigue of the driver of the vehicle being metrologically determined, the distribution of the response times is changed toward longer response times (Reinisch: Para. 0046, teaching that the reaction time can be based on a percentage of drivers who are able to react in time to the event).
Regarding claim 29, Reinisch teaches [o]ne or more computers configured to control a driving assistance system or a system for at least partially automated driving, the one or more computers being configured to (Reinisch: Para. 0003, teaching a driver assistance system): provide measurement data which characterize a traffic situation of a vehicle (Reinisch: Para. 0041, teaching collecting data on the environment such as the location of objects on the road); ascertain several candidate responses to the traffic situation, wherein the candidate responses each include controlling the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, or suppressing such a control (Reinisch: Para. 0045, teaching determining responses to a traffic event such as a potential collision); ascertain, for each of the candidate responses, a score... [which] indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Reinisch: Para. 0046 and 0049, teaching determining a maximum reaction time of each type of event and the last-possible time for braking or evading based on parameters that denotes the percentage of drivers that can react to the identified events); select, using the scores, one of the candidate responses as a response to be carried out (Reinisch: Para. 0050-0052, teaching that the response to the event is selected based on the reaction time of the driver and how much time is left for them to react); and control the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, to carry out the selected response (Reinisch: Para. 0054, teaching that the system controls the vehicle based on the response to the traffic event and the driver's reaction time).
Reinisch is silent to the score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings.
In a similar field, Curtis teaches ascertain, for each of the candidate responses, a score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings; and the score indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Curtis: Para. 0039, teaching determining imminent driving events for a vehicle including a probability a given driving event occurs and generating a notification to a user when the probability exceeds a threshold; Para. 0028, teaching that the notification is generated based on the user's driving style; and Para. 0060, teaching that the user's driving style is determined based on the user's driving history including their response to a driving event with and without a notification) for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the reaction time of a driver and the appropriate assistance to given in a traffic event from Reinisch to factor in the driver’s historical response to the traffic event with and without a notification, as taught by Curtis, for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinisch in view of Curtis as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Hashimoto et al. (US Pub. No. 20220289174 A1), herein after Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 22, Reinisch and Curtis remain as applied as in claim 16, however they is silent to [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the score of at least one of the candidate responses depends on a ratio of an avoidance acceleration of the vehicle, required to avoid an accident, in one or more directions, to a maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle in the direction.
In a similar field, Hashimoto teaches [t]he method according to claim 16, wherein the score of at least one of the candidate responses depends on a ratio of an avoidance acceleration of the vehicle, required to avoid an accident, in one or more directions, to a maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle in the direction (Hashimoto: Para. 0091, teaching determining the acceleration required by a vehicle to safely avoid colliding with an object; and Para. 0117-0121, teaching that the avoidance route is generated according to the maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle and the current acceleration of the vehicle) for the benefit of improved responsiveness of a driver assistance system to an evolving traffic environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the reaction time of a driver and the appropriate assistance to given in a traffic event from Reinisch in view of Curtis to base the reaction time and assistance determination on the current and max acceleration of the vehicle, as taught by Hashimoto, for the benefit of improved responsiveness of a driver assistance system to an evolving traffic environment.
Regarding claim 23, Reinisch, Curtis, and Hashimoto remain as applied as in claim 22, and Hashimoto goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 22, wherein the score additionally depends on: an acceleration of the vehicle of which the driver of the vehicle is in principle capable; and/or an acceleration currently applied to the vehicle (Hashimoto: Para. 0091, teaching determining the acceleration required by a vehicle to safely avoid colliding with an object; and Para. 0117-0121, teaching that the avoidance route is generated according to the maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle and the current acceleration of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 24, Reinisch, Curtis, and Hashimoto remain as applied as in claim 23, and Hashimoto goes on to further teach [t]he method according to claim 23, wherein the acceleration of the vehicle of which the driver of the vehicle is capable is interpolated between a basic acceleration and a physically maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle (Hashimoto: Para. 0091, teaching determining the acceleration required by a vehicle to safely avoid colliding with an object; and Para. 0117-0121, teaching that the avoidance route is generated according to the maximum possible acceleration of the vehicle and the current acceleration of the vehicle).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinisch in view of and as evidenced by previously cited of record Silva et al. (US Pub. No. 20210370921 A1), herein after Silva, and further in view of Curtis.
Regarding claim 28, Reinisch teaches providing measurement data which characterize a traffic situation of a vehicle (Reinisch: Para. 0041, teaching collecting data on the environment such as the location of objects on the road); ascertaining several candidate responses to the traffic situation, wherein the candidate responses each include controlling the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, or suppressing such a control (Reinisch: Para. 0045, teaching determining responses to a traffic event such as a potential collision); ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score… [which] indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Reinisch: Para. 0046 and 0049, teaching determining a maximum reaction time of each type of event and the last-possible time for braking or evading based on parameters that denotes the percentage of drivers that can react to the identified events); selecting, using the scores, one of the candidate responses as a response to be carried out (Reinisch: Para. 0050-0052, teaching that the response to the event is selected based on the reaction time of the driver and how much time is left for them to react); and controlling the driving assistance system, or the system for at least partially automated driving, to carry out the selected response (Reinisch: Para. 0054, teaching that the system controls the vehicle based on the response to the traffic event and the driver's reaction time).
Reinisch does not explicitly teach [a] non-transitory machine-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program for controlling a driving assistance system or a system for at least partially automated driving, the computer program, when executed by one or more computers, causing the one or more computers to perform the following steps however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Silva which teaches the use of [a] non-transitory machine-readable data carrier on which is stored a computer program for controlling a driving assistance system or a system for at least partially automated driving, the computer program, when executed by one or more computers, causing the one or more computers to perform steps for assisting a driver during dangerous traffic (Silva: Para. 0094, teaching a non-transitory memory programed to control a vehicle safety system during collision avoidance) for the benefit of executing the invention in a computer environment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to have the driving assistance of Reinisch be stored as a program in a non-transitory memory, as taught by Silva, for the benefit of executing the invention in a computer environment.
Reinisch is silent to the score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings.
In a similar field, Curtis teaches ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, wherein: the distribution of response times of the driver of the vehicle comprises time differences between: (A) previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation and first previous reactions of the driver to the previous determinations of hazards relating to the traffic situation, or (B) issuing previous warnings to the driver and second previous reactions of the driver to the previous warnings; and the score indicates how dangerously the traffic situation develops after performing the respective candidate response (Curtis: Para. 0039, teaching determining imminent driving events for a vehicle including a probability a given driving event occurs and generating a notification to a user when the probability exceeds a threshold; Para. 0028, teaching that the notification is generated based on the user's driving style; and Para. 0060, teaching that the user's driving style is determined based on the user's driving history including their response to a driving event with and without a notification) for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the determination of the reaction time of a driver and the appropriate assistance to given in a traffic event from Reinisch as evidenced by Silva to factor in the driver’s historical response to the traffic event with and without a notification, as taught by Curtis, for the benefit of increasing the accuracy and relevance of notifications to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed May 29th, 2026 with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 16-21, 25-27, and 29 in view of Reinisch and the 103 rejection of claim 28 in view of Reinisch as evidenced by Silva in light of the amendments filed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reinisch in further view of Curtis for claims 16-21, 25-27, and 29 and Reinisch as evidenced by Silva in view of Curtis for claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sathyanarayana et al. (US Pub. No. 20180365533 A1) discloses determining a risk of a driving event using a driver score that is based on a driver’s historic driving behavior and notifying the driver when the risk score is too high.
Goldman-Shenhar et al. (US Pub. No. 20180173230 A1) discloses determining a time to collision for a vehicle and warning the driver of the collision based on the driver’s historical response to notifications and the driver’s response times to collisions without the notifications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights