DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the arguments filed October 28th, 2025. 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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-21, 25-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previously cited of record Reinisch et al. (US Pub. No. 20120283927 A1), herein after Reinisch.
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 using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, the score indicating 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).
Regarding claim 17, Reinisch remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 18 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 21 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 remain as applied as in claim 16 and 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 using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, the score indicating 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).
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 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinisch 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 remain as applied as in claim 16, however Reinisch 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 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 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 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.
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 using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle, the score indicating 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed October 28th, 2025 with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 16-21, 25-27, and 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 6 lines 15-25, filed October 28th, 2025) that the reaction times of the driver in Reinisch does not map to the claimed score as the response times of Reinisch are based on the reaction times of many drivers while the applicant’s specification states in paragraph 0014 that the score is based on a distribution of response times that is “highly driver-specific”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the score is highly driver-specific and not based on many drivers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the plain meaning of the claimed limitation of ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle merely requires that it is based on the estimated response time of any driver while paragraph 0046 states that the maximal reaction time is a time that is valid for “a majority of drivers” which the current driver is assumed to belong to. As such, the prior art of Reinisch is deemed sufficient in teaching the ascertaining, for each of the candidate responses, a score using a distribution of response times of a driver of the vehicle.
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 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