DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 in parent Application No. DE10 2021 127 068.5, filed on 10/19/2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 11-20 filed on 11/11/2025 are presently examined. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 11 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Kunzner does not disclose adapting the activation threshold and/or the intervention characteristic.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kunzner discloses adapting the intervention characteristic. The terms “adapting” and “intervention characteristic” are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation. Kunzner recognizes a driving scenario in which a first driving function can be activated once in the activation threshold, whether that be a time or spatial distance relative to a preceding vehicle, for example. Next, Kunzner teaches intervening in the vehicle control to get the vehicle’s parameters within the activation threshold of the first driving function. The characteristic that is used for intervention is the speed of the vehicle. It adapts the speed intervention by either increasing or decreasing the speed of the vehicle to match the threshold for activating the first driving function.
Thus, Kunzner discloses adapting the activation threshold and/or the intervention characteristic, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“computing unit” in claim 18, described in Applicant’s specification [0002] “a computer program that, when it is executed in a computing unit, is designed to execute the method”
“control unit” in claims 19 and 20, described in Applicant’s specification [0049] “The control unit may be an electronic control unit (ECU) for a vehicle. The electronic control unit may be an intelligent processor-controlled unit that via a central gateway (CGW) is able to communicate with other modules”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Künzner (DE 102018206425 A1), hereinafter referred to as Künzner.
Regarding claim 11, Künzner discloses A method for assisting in an activation of an automated driving function of a vehicle that includes at least one driving-assistance system configured to influence a driving situation of the vehicle as soon as an activation threshold and/or an intervention characteristic is reached ([0013] “first driving function is available for activation within a permissible range (defined by a lower and/or upper limit) for a driving parameter, for example when the driving speed is within a speed range of 60 km/h to 130 km/h.”), the method comprising:
determining a current driving situation of the vehicle ([0013] “The activation of the first driving function can of course be linked to another driving parameter (e.g. B. the time or length-related distance to the vehicle in front) than the driving parameter mentioned above (e.g. B. the vehicle speed) in a corresponding permissible range (e.g. B. less than 3 s).”);
ascertaining that the current driving situation of the vehicle differs from a specified driving situation in which the automated driving function can be activated ([0016] “a value of the driving parameter outside the permissible range (e.g. B. a current vehicle speed greater than the maximum permissible vehicle speed for activating an HAF driving function)”);
and adapting the activation threshold ([0035] “a target distance to the vehicle in front can generally be set via the control device; if the target distance is set by the system, the target distance set by the driver is modified.”) and/or the intervention characteristic of the at least one driving-assistance system ([0016] “a cruise control of the second driving function attempts to reduce or increase the vehicle speed (depending on the initial speed).”).
Regarding claim 12, Künzner discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: activating the at least one driving-assistance system in order to influence the current driving situation of the vehicle ([0016] “a cruise control of the second driving function attempts to reduce or increase the vehicle speed (depending on the initial speed).”).
Regarding claim 13, Künzner discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the activation threshold and/or the intervention characteristic of the at least one driving-assistance system are/is adapted in time-limited manner ([0016] “a cruise control of the second driving function attempts to reduce or increase the vehicle speed (depending on the initial speed).” [0034] “An operator action to activate HAF first activates TAF, the distance is automatically increased and - if this is large enough, in particular greater than or equal to a threshold value for the distance - HAF is activated.”).
Regarding claim 14, Künzner discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the driving situation of the vehicle includes: a speed of the vehicle, a lane position of the vehicle, and/or a maximum or minimum spacing of the vehicle from a vehicle traveling ahead ([0038] “the availability of the first driving function often depends on the respective value of various driving parameters, for example whether the driving speed is in a certain speed range (first permissible range) and whether the distance to the vehicle in front is greater than or equal to a threshold value (second permissible range). If necessary, availability may also depend on the value of one or more other driving parameters (e.g. B. the transverse position in the lane).”).
Regarding claim 16, Künzner discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the automated driving function is: a highly automated driving of the vehicle, a fully automated driving of the vehicle, or an autonomous driving of the vehicle ([0002] “fully automated driving” [0003] “highly automated driving (HAD) function”).
Regarding claim 17, Künzner discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving a user command according to which the automated driving function of the vehicle is to be activated ([0021] “the driving function has a user interface which comprises an input component for a driver-side operating action for activating the first driving function, for example an actuatable operating element (in particular an operating button) for activating the first driving function.”).
Regarding claim 18, Künzner discloses A non-transitory medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a computing unit, causes the computing unit to perform the method of claim 11 ([0045] “software with program code for carrying out the method according to the second aspect of the invention when the software runs on a computer”).
Regarding claim 19, Künzner discloses A control unit configured to execute the method according to claim 11 ([0015] “The control unit may comprise one or more computers with one or more processors operating in the manner according to the invention under software control.”).
Regarding claim 20, Künzner discloses A passenger vehicle comprising: a control unit according to claim 19 ([0001] “The invention relates to a driving system for a motor vehicle” [0015] “The control unit may comprise one or more computers with one or more processors operating in the manner according to the invention under software control.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Künzner as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kaufmann et al. (US 20040262063 A1), hereafter referred to as Kaufmann.
Regarding claim 15, Künzner fails to disclose The method of claim 11, further comprising: activating the automated driving function as soon as the specified driving situation has been maintained for a predetermined period ([0006] “in order to activate HAF, it may be required that the lateral position of the vehicle in the lane lies within a certain range so that the lateral position is reasonably central.”).
However, Kauffman teaches activating the automated driving function as soon as the specified driving situation has been maintained for a predetermined period. ([0019] “When the driver has completed his correction the lane keeping system 100 transitions back to autonomous mode when the driver is within 0.5 meters of the lane center, for a duration of 5 seconds, when both of these conditions have been met the lane keeping system transitions back to the autonomous mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Künzner with Kaufmann. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify Künzner ‘s selective activation of automated vehicle driving with Kaufmann’s teaching of similarly selective activation of automated driving once the driver manually maintains required conditions for a predetermined duration of time. This would enable the driver to make any corrections or overrides as needed and then transition back to autonomous mode once they are finished (Kaufmann [0019] “the driver may want to make a correction and/or over ride the lane keeping system 100. So … the lane keeping system 100 transitions to the helper (assist) mode” and then transitions back to autonomous mode after the driver maintains the vehicle within the tolerance band for a duration of time.).
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 MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668