Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 11/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the §112(b) and 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. Claims no longer are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 UC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment changes the scope of the invention. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of EP3133454A1 Takahashi et al ("Takahashi", English machine translation provided).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150120144A1 De Bruin et al ("De Bruin", previously cited), DE102004041225A1 Ruchatz et al ("Ruchatz", previously cited), and EP3133454A1 Takahashi et al ("Takahashi").
As per claims 1, 10, 11 De Bruin teaches:
An in-vehicle device for hands-free driving assistance (De Bruin at least the abstract, [0011]), comprising: a processor configured to obtain (i) a hands-free assistance status signal from a hands-free driving assistance system of a vehicle and (ii) a steering assistance status signal from a steering system of the vehicle; ascertain, based on the hands-free assistance status signal, whether a hands-free driving assistance function of the vehicle is activated, and ascertain, based on the steering assistance status signal, whether a fault occurs in the steering system; (De Bruin at least the abstract, [0020]: “informed in the event of failure…steering system…perform independent…guidance”)
trigger a brake jerk in a braking system of the vehicle when the hands-free driving assistance function has been activated and the fault occurs in the steering system; (De Bruin at least the abstract: “failure of the steering system, targeted braking interventions”, [0024]: “takeover...outputted…haptic…optic message”)
De Bruin does not disclose:
calculate, in real time during the brake jerk, and based on a mass of the vehicle, a duration that the brake jerk has lasted, and a rate of change in a longitudinal deceleration of the vehicle, a braking force for the brake jerk, the braking force for use in dynamic pressure build-up in the braking system during the brake jerk.
Ruchatz teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ruchatz at least [0013]: "jerk that hardly affects the adhesion between the vehicle and the road", FIG.1, [0018-0019], [0021]). *Examiner’s note: road friction accounts for the coefficient of friction and the mass/weight of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ruchatz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to warn a driver of a dangerous situation (Ruchatz [0001]).
De Bruin does not disclose:
operate the braking system to adjust in real time during the brake jerk (i) a rate of change in a longitudinal deceleration of the vehicle during the brake jerk, and (ii) a total duration of the brake jerk, such that in response to the brake jerk a user is drawn to hold a steering wheel of the vehicle with both hands and to take over steering the vehicle, wherein during the brake jerk, the processor adjusts the rate of change in the longitudinal deceleration of the vehicle to be within a first predetermined lower limit value and a first predetermined upper limit value, and wherein the processor adjusts the total duration of the brake jerk to be within a second predetermined lower limit value and a second predetermined upper limit value.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitations (Takahashi at least [0011], FIGs. 4-11). *Examiner’s note: Figures 4-11 teach modifying brake jerk amplitude and duration with limit values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve vehicle safety (Takahashi [0082]).
Claim(s) 2, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bruin, Ruchatz, and Takahashi in further view of US20190001989A1 Schoenfeld et al ("Schoenfeld").
As per claim 2, De Bruin in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin does not disclose:
before the hands-free driving assistance function is activated, detect whether the braking system of the vehicle is able to generate the brake jerk; when a detection result indicates that the braking system is unable to generate the brake jerk, send a control signal for disabling the hands-free driving assistance function to the hands-free driving assistance system of the vehicle to end this the hands-free driving assistance function; and when the detection result indicates that the braking system is able to generate the brake jerk, allow the hands-free driving assistance function to be activated to continue this the hands-free driving assistance function.
Schoenfeld teaches the aforementioned limitation (Schoenfeld at least [0010]: "depending on the vehicle function affected by the error…functions may also be deactivated…remains controllable manually", [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Schoenfeld with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve vehicle safety (Schoenfeld [0004]).
As per claim 6, De Bruin in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin does not disclose:
upon ascertaining, based on the steering assistance status signal, that at least one of a steering assistance function of the steering system and communication between the steering system and the braking system is lost, the processor ascertains that the fault occurs in the steering system.
Schoenfeld teaches the aforementioned limitation (Schoenfeld at least [011-0017]: "discover…the error…in a manner that the vehicle itself…performs a diagnosis").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Schoenfeld with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, De Bruin in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin additionally teaches:
the in-vehicle device further comprises a domain controller configured to transmit a reminder signal to a human-machine interaction interface of the vehicle while the brake jerk is triggered to provide, in the vehicle, information for reminding a user to hold a steering wheel with both hands and take over the vehicle. (De Bruin at least the abstract, [0024], [0020]: “takeover prompt…outputted to the driver…failure of the steering system”)
Regarding claim 8, De Bruin in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. While De Bruin teaches the equivalent systems capable of the same functions (De Bruin at least the abstract, [0011], [0020], [0024]), De Bruin does not explicitly disclose:
the processor is disposed in the braking system of the vehicle, and the domain controller is separate from the braking system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to arrange the processor/modules and the related programming instructions in various locations , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, De Bruin in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin additionally teaches:
the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, which is configured to ascertain whether to trigger the brake jerk, and determine the braking force for the brake jerk upon ascertaining to trigger the brake jerk (De Bruin at least the abstract, [0011], [0020], [0024]); and a human-machine interaction interface configured to provide, in the vehicle, information for reminding a user to hold a steering wheel with both hands and take over the vehicle. (De Bruin at least [0020], [0024])
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bruin, Ruchatz, and Takahashi in further view of US20090306872A1 Joyce ("Joyce").
As per claim 4, De Bruin in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin does not disclose:
the brake jerk has a predetermined duration
Ruchatz teaches the aforementioned limitation (Ruchatz at least FIG. 1, t0-t1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Ruchatz with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 1.
De Bruin does not disclose:
calculate the braking force for the brake jerk based on the following formula:F(t)=J(k)*m*t, where:
F(t) is a braking force for the brake jerk at a moment t;
t is the duration that the brake jerk has lasted, a maximum value of t being the predetermined duration of the brake jerk;
J(k) is the rate of change in the longitudinal deceleration of the vehicle, which is associated with a suspension stiffness k of the vehicle; and
m is the mass of the vehicle.
Joyce teaches the aforementioned limitation (Joyce at least [0020]: "longitudinal tire forces…brake demand…brake pressure", [0026-0027]). *Examiner’s note: here Joyce teaches calculating a brake force considering the suspension, vehicle mass, vehicle kinematics as known by one of ordinary skill in the art. The formula is interpreted as a derivative of F=mA wherein the acceleration is represented by a time based derivative of jerk.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Joyce with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve braking control (Joyce [0019]).
As per claim 5, De Bruin in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. De Bruin does not disclose:
a correlation table in a non-transitory memory including a correlation between the J(k) value and the suspension stiffness of the vehicle, and the processor is configured to look up the correlation table for the J(k) value corresponding to a current suspension stiffness of the vehicle.
Joyce teaches the aforementioned limitation (Joyce at least [0015]: "memory for storing and processing…brake control algorithms", [0026-0027]: “equations…suspension”). *Examiner’s note: the look-up tables are interpreted as an analog representation of algorithms and formulas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine De Bruin with the aforementioned limitations taught by Joyce with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these references is the same as above in claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669