DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-21 remain pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 a 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 07/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 07/15/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that Laur fails to disclose or suggest “based on a user inside the vehicle being in a drivable state transition the vehicle to a transition demand (TD) state; and provide, based on the vehicle being in the TD state, a notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle” because Laur's determination at Step 240 of whether the operator is ready occurs after the notification provided at Step 230.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's argument focuses on the final readiness verification at Step 240 of Laur. However, Laur additionally describes an operator-detection device configured to determine a readiness state of the operator, including whether the operator is ready or not ready to assume manual control. Laur determines the readiness state based on, for example, the operator's head position, body orientation, foot position, and contact with the steering wheel (Laur, Paragraphs 0017-0019). Further, prior to the notification at Step 230, Laur uses information from the operator-detection device to determine whether the operator is positioned to assume manual control and adjusts the take-over interval accordingly (Laur, Paragraphs 0024-0025 and Figure 2). Thus, the later verification at Step 240 does not negate Laur's earlier determination and use of information regarding the operator's readiness.
Further, the rejection does not rely on Laur alone for the claimed sequence. Yang describes transitioning from normal autonomous operation to a driver intervention request state, and, while in the driver intervention request state, requesting that the driver receive driving authority. Yang further describes transitioning from the driver intervention request state to performance of the minimal risk maneuver when the driver does not assume control within a predetermined period (Yang, Paragraphs 0123-0131 and Figure 9). Yang also recognizes that a person may not be able to drive and separately describes monitoring a state of the driver (Yang, Paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0092-0093).
In view of Laur's teaching of determining the readiness state of the operator, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Yang such that the transition into the driver intervention request/TD state is based on determining that the user is in a state capable of assuming control, after which Yang provides the request for the user to take control. Such a modification would have predictably used Laur's driver-readiness determination to determine whether a request for transfer of driving control should be made, thereby avoiding requesting transfer of control to a user who is not in a condition to assume control. Accordingly, the combination of Yang and Laur discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the claimed sequence.
Applicant further argues that Yamaguchi fails to cure the alleged deficiency of Yang and Laur. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamaguchi is not relied upon to disclose or suggest the transition to the TD state based on the user being in a drivable state or the subsequent notification requesting control. Rather, Yamaguchi is relied upon for the separately recited limitation of “turn off, based on user manipulation of an external indicator button, the external indicator.” Accordingly, Applicant's argument regarding Yamaguchi does not address the teachings of Yang and Laur relied upon for the disputed TD-state limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0399018A1 (hereinafter, Yang), in view of Laur et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 20170015331 (hereinafter, Lauer), in further view of Yamaguchi JP2008100575A (hereinafter, Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang describes a vehicle comprising:
-at least one sensor configured to detect a surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environmental information (sensor detects the surrounding environment and generates surrounding environmental information including detected objects, Yang, Paragraphs 0031-0038);
-a controller circuit configured to control an operation of the vehicle (controller controls operations of the vehicle including steering, driving, braking, and shifting, Yang, Paragraphs 0039-0041);
-a memory storing at least one instruction (memory stores instructions executable by the processor, Yang, Paragraphs 0039-0048 and 0236); and
-a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, to (processor controls operations of the vehicle according to stored instructions, Yang, Paragraphs 0030, 0039-0048 and 0236):
-monitor a status of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information (vehicle monitors the status of the vehicle and components thereof to determine the state of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figures 2-3);
-determine, during autonomous driving of the vehicle and based on at least one of the surrounding environmental information or the vehicle state information, whether a minimal risk maneuver is required, wherein the minimal risk maneuver comprises controlling of the vehicle for reducing a risk of collision (vehicle determines whether a minimal risk maneuver is required based on vehicle and surrounding information, wherein the minimal risk maneuver includes steering, deceleration, braking, or stopping the vehicle to reduce risk, Yang, Paragraphs 0072-0077 and Figure 3);
-...
-provide, to the user inside the vehicle, an indication of initiation of the minimal risk maneuver (information regarding performance of the minimal risk maneuver is displayed internally to an occupant of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169);
-turn on, based on the execution of the minimal risk maneuver, an external indicator indicating the execution of the minimal risk maneuver (information regarding performance of the minimal risk maneuver is displayed externally, including activation of a hazard warning light, Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169); and
-....
Yang does not specifically disclose based on a user inside the vehicle being in a drivable state transition the vehicle to a transition demand (TD) state; and provide, based on the vehicle being in the TD state, a notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle; after the notification is provided, execute, based on the minimal risk maneuver being required, the minimal risk maneuver by causing the controller circuit to control autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Laur discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Laur describes determining a readiness state of a vehicle operator, including whether the operator is ready to assume manual control, and providing a notification requesting transition from automated control to manual control. Laur further describes transitioning control based on the operator being ready to assume manual control (Laur, Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0017-0019 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to transition the vehicle based on the user being in a drivable state, provide a notification requesting that the user take control of the vehicle, and thereafter execute the minimal risk maneuver when required, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Laur.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining whether the user is capable of assuming control and notifying the user of a requested transition improves safety during a transition from autonomous control (Laur, Paragraphs 0002-0003).
Yang further does not specifically disclose turn off, based on user manipulation of an external indicator button, the external indicator.
Yamaguchi discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Yamaguchi describes a vehicle hazard indicator controlled by a push button, wherein operation of the push button controls operation of the hazard indicator (Yamaguchi, Paragraph 0017).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to turn off, based on user manipulation of an external indicator button, the external indicator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Yamaguchi.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because providing a user-operated control for an external vehicle indicator allows the operator to control whether the external warning remains active (Yamaguchi, Paragraph 0017).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, to transition the vehicle to the TD state by:
-determining an autonomous driving level of the vehicle (vehicle determines an autonomous driving level associated with the transition and minimal risk maneuver, Yang, Paragraphs 0050-0053 and 0060);
-monitoring, based on the autonomous driving level of the vehicle being greater than or equal to a predetermined automation level, the user; and transitioning the vehicle to the TD state based on the monitoring of the user indicating that the user is in the drivable state (vehicle performs driver monitoring in association with the autonomous driving level and determines whether the driver is sufficiently alert or prepared to take control of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0060 and 0092-0093).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1.
Yang does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, further to, based on a predetermined time elapsing after providing of the notification, provide a second notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle, and wherein the second notification has a higher intensity than the notification.
Laur discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Laur describes providing notifications to an operator during a takeover interval and varying the notification used to alert the operator to assume manual control (Laur, Paragraphs 0025-0030 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to, based on a predetermined time elapsing after providing of the notification, provide a second notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle, and wherein the second notification has a higher intensity than the notification, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Laur.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because increasing a notification provided to a user who has not yet taken control increases the likelihood that the user will perceive and respond to the request for manual control (Laur, Paragraphs 0003 and 0025-0030).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the notification and the second notification comprise at least one of: an auditory alert, a visual alert, or haptic feedback (notification to the driver includes a visual or auditory notification, Yang, Paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, further to determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver in the TD state based on failing to obtain information necessary for the autonomous driving of the vehicle (vehicle determines to execute the minimal risk maneuver when information or functionality necessary for autonomous driving is unavailable, Yang, Paragraphs 0057-0058).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, further to determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver based on detecting a physical malfunction associated with the autonomous driving of the vehicle (vehicle executes the minimal risk maneuver based on failure or malfunction of vehicle components associated with autonomous driving, Yang, Paragraphs 0057-0058).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, to transition the vehicle to the TD state by:
-determining an autonomous driving level of the vehicle (vehicle determines an autonomous driving level associated with operation and transition of the autonomous driving system, Yang, Paragraphs 0050-0053 and 0123-0131); and
-transitioning the vehicle to the TD state based on the autonomous driving level of the vehicle being less than or equal to a predetermined automation level (vehicle transitions based on the autonomous driving level of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0123-0131 and Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, further to:
-determine whether the minimal risk maneuver is terminated; and
-based on the minimal risk maneuver being terminated, clear the indication (vehicle determines termination of the minimal risk maneuver and clears the associated notification or indication when the condition requiring the minimal risk maneuver is no longer present, Yang, Figures 2, 9, 16 and 17).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction, stored in the memory, further to, based on the vehicle having stopped and remaining stationary, determine that the minimal risk maneuver has been terminated (minimal risk maneuver is ended when the vehicle has stopped and the stopped state is maintained for a reference period, Yang, Paragraphs 0194-0199 and Figure 15).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0399018 A1 (hereinafter, Yang), in view of Laur et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0015331 A1 (hereinafter, Laur), in further view of Foster et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0140569 A1 (hereinafter, Foster).
Regarding Claim 21, Yang describes a vehicle comprising:
-at least one sensor configured to detect a surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environmental information (sensor detects the surrounding environment and generates surrounding environmental information including detected objects, Yang, Paragraphs 0031-0038);
-a controller circuit configured to control an operation of the vehicle (controller controls operations of the vehicle including steering, driving, braking, and shifting, Yang, Paragraphs 0039-0041);
-a processor (processor controls operation of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0030 and 0039-0048); and
-a memory storing at least one instruction that, when executed by the processor, causes the vehicle to (memory stores instructions executable by the processor, Yang, Paragraphs 0039-0048 and 0236):
-monitor a status of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information (vehicle monitors the status of the vehicle and components thereof, Yang, Paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figures 2-3);
-determine, during autonomous driving of the vehicle and based on at least one of the surrounding environmental information or the vehicle state information, whether a minimal risk maneuver is required, wherein the minimal risk maneuver comprises controlling of the vehicle for reducing a risk of collision (vehicle determines whether a minimal risk maneuver is required based on vehicle and surrounding information and performs steering, braking, deceleration, or stopping to reduce risk, Yang, Paragraphs 0072-0077 and Figure 3);
-...
-based on the execution of the minimal risk maneuver:
-turn on an internal indicator, of the vehicle, indicating the execution of the minimal risk maneuver (information regarding the minimal risk maneuver is displayed internally to an occupant while the minimal risk maneuver is being performed, Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169); and
-turn on an external indicator, of the vehicle, indicating the execution of the minimal risk maneuver (information regarding the minimal risk maneuver is displayed externally, including activation of a hazard warning light, Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169); and
-based on termination of the minimal risk maneuver, automatically turn off, without user manipulation, the internal indicator ... (vehicle determines termination of the minimal risk maneuver and clears the internal indication associated with performance of the minimal risk maneuver, Yang, Figures 2, 9, 16 and 17).
Yang does not specifically disclose provide, based on a user inside the vehicle being in a drivable state, a notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle; after the notification is provided, execute, based on the minimal risk maneuver being required, the minimal risk maneuver by causing the controller circuit to control autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Laur discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Laur describes determining a readiness state of the vehicle operator, including whether the operator is ready to assume manual control, and providing a notification requesting transition from automated control to manual control (Laur, Paragraphs 0012-0013 and 0017-0019 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to provide, based on the user being in a drivable state, a notification requesting the user to take control of the vehicle and thereafter execute Yang's minimal risk maneuver when the minimal risk maneuver is required, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Laur.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining whether the user is capable of assuming control and notifying the user of a requested transition provides the user an opportunity to assume control before the autonomous vehicle performs a minimal risk maneuver (Laur, Paragraphs 0002-0003).
Yang further does not specifically disclose while maintaining the external indicator in a turned-on state to be manually turned off with user manipulation.
Foster discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Foster describes an autonomous vehicle executing a minimal risk condition maneuver and activating externally visible hazard lights during the maneuver. Foster further describes maintaining the hazard lights in the activated state after completion of the minimal risk condition maneuver and keeping the hazard lights activated until a human operator turns the hazard lights off (Foster, Paragraphs 0918-0919 and Figure 9A).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to, following termination of the minimal risk maneuver, maintain the external indicator in a turned-on state to be manually turned off with user manipulation, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Foster.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, because maintaining the external hazard indication after completion of the minimal risk maneuver continues to notify surrounding road users that the vehicle is stopped or in a safety-related condition and allows the external warning to remain active until an operator determines that the warning is no longer necessary (Foster, Paragraphs 0918-0919).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights