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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 10 & 26 have been amended. Claims 22-25 & 27 have been canceled. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 10-21 & 26 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative argues, in substance, that neither Christoph (US2019/0152525 A1) nor Rank (DE102019008318 A1) disclose and/or teach that the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically.
In response to applicant’s argument the examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially the examiner would like to point out that applicant’s representative employs broad language, and as such the examiner reserves the right to interpret the claims broadly. The contested newly amended limitation states that the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type, the limitation does not explicate how the determination is based upon the indication type and/or how the indication time is affected. As such the examiner contends that Christoph and Rank’s disclosure of informing/pre-warning (respectively) the driver of a need to change lanes optically, acoustically and/or haptically reads on the instantly contested limitation. Additionally, the examiner asserts that each of these indication types would have, relatively, different transmission and/or reaction times associated with them and as such the difference would inherently cause changes in the overall indication time(s). As such the examiner contends that the combination of Christoph and Rank still read on the instantly contested claims.
Additionally, the examiner has included an additional rejection with a new reference to demonstrate that the newly amended features were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention; should applicant’s representative not agree with the argument(s) put forward above.
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.
Claims 10-21 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph (US 20190152525 A1) and further in view of Rank (DE102019008318A1).
As per claim 10, Christoph discloses: a method for assisting a user of a vehicle during maneuvering of the vehicle on a multi-lane road (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4), the method comprising:
receiving a travel command to maneuver the vehicle from a second lane of the road across a first lane of the road onto an exit of the road (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4, exemplary lane change indication);
searching for a free gap for the vehicle between road users in the first lane (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4 and ¶64-74, lane changing between multiple lanes and vehicles);
issuing an indication to the user to actuate an operator control element to initiate a lane change maneuver from the second lane into the free gap in the first lane, wherein the indication is issued at an indication time (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4, lane-change indication based on position of vehicle, other vehicles and distance to desired lane/exit, average time per lane change).
Christoph discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Christoph does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determining an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapting the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor; wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically.
Nevertheless, Rank—who is in the same field of endeavor discloses determining a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determining an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapting the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor; wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Rank’s adjusting the warning time to a driver based upon their reaction time with those of Christoph’s in order to form a safer and more reliable system (i.e., by taking into consideration the awareness level of a driver into consideration prior to issuing notifications and avoiding collisions and/or accidents).
Motivation for combining Christoph and Rank not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Rank (see pg. 2).
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 11: wherein the total reaction time comprises a user reaction time, a user action time and a known system time, wherein in order to determine the individual reaction factor the user reaction time and the user action time are measured and wherein the sum of the user reaction time and of the user action time corresponds to a duration between the issuing of the indication and the actuation of the operator control element by the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 12: wherein an alertness and/or a tiredness of the user is determined and the individual reaction factor is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 13: wherein an alertness and/or a tiredness of the user is determined and the individual reaction factor is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 14: wherein the alertness and/or the tiredness is determined continuously during operation of the vehicle and the indication time is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 15: wherein the alertness and/or the tiredness is determined continuously during operation of the vehicle and the indication time is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 16: wherein a position of at least one hand of the user is determined and the position of the at least one hand is taken into account during the determination of the individual reaction factor based on the user action time (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, detection area including steering wheel and hands of the vehicles user; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 17: wherein a position of at least one hand of the user is determined and the position of the at least one hand is taken into account during the determination of the individual reaction factor based on the user action time (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, detection area including steering wheel and hands of the vehicles user; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 18: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 19: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 20: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 21: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Both Christoph and Rank disclose claim 26: A driver assistance system for a vehicle the driver assistance system comprising:
an electronic control unit configured to control operation of the driver assistance system to assist a user of the vehicle during maneuvering of the vehicle on a multi-lane road; and a plurality of environment sensors configured to detect objects and other road users in an environment of the vehicle; wherein the electronic control unit is configured to receive a travel command to maneuver the vehicle from a second lane of the road across a first lane of the road onto an exit of the road; search for a free gap for the vehicle between road users in the first lane; issue an indication to the user to actuate an operator control element to initiate a lane change maneuver from the second lane into the free gap in the first lane, wherein the indication is issued at an indication time; determine a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determine an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapt the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor; wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically (see claim 1).
Claims 10-21 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph (US 20190152525 A1) and in view of Rank (DE102019008318A1) and further in view of KR20200082457A (hereinafter 457).
As per claim 10, Christoph discloses: a method for assisting a user of a vehicle during maneuvering of the vehicle on a multi-lane road (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4), the method comprising:
receiving a travel command to maneuver the vehicle from a second lane of the road across a first lane of the road onto an exit of the road (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4, exemplary lane change indication);
searching for a free gap for the vehicle between road users in the first lane (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4 and ¶64-74, lane changing between multiple lanes and vehicles);
issuing an indication to the user to actuate an operator control element to initiate a lane change maneuver from the second lane into the free gap in the first lane, wherein the indication is issued at an indication time (see Christoph at least fig. 2-4, lane-change indication based on position of vehicle, other vehicles and distance to desired lane/exit, average time per lane change).
Christoph discloses the invention as detailed above.
However, Christoph does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determining an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapting the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor; wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically.
Nevertheless, Rank—who is in the same field of endeavor discloses determining a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determining an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapting the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention would have been motivated to combine Rank’s adjusting the warning time to a driver based upon their reaction time with those of Christoph’s in order to form a safer and more reliable system (i.e., by taking into consideration the awareness level of a driver into consideration prior to issuing notifications and avoiding collisions and/or accidents).
Motivation for combining Christoph and Rank not only comes from knowledge well known in the art, but also from Rank (see pg. 2).
Furthermore, 457—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically (see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5 in particular fig. 4; timing of the generation of the alarm signal and the reaction timing of the driver’s manipulation signal are analyzed, statistical value of operation reaction time for each type of alarm signal).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing time of the given invention would have been motivated to combine 457 with Christoph and Rank in order to form a more convenient and overall safer warning system (i.e., by adaptively adjusting the output timing of the alarm signal).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from 457 (see Abstract and Description).
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 11: wherein the total reaction time comprises a user reaction time, a user action time and a known system time, wherein in order to determine the individual reaction factor the user reaction time and the user action time are measured and wherein the sum of the user reaction time and of the user action time corresponds to a duration between the issuing of the indication and the actuation of the operator control element by the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 12: wherein an alertness and/or a tiredness of the user is determined and the individual reaction factor is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph and Rank, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 13: wherein an alertness and/or a tiredness of the user is determined and the individual reaction factor is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 14: wherein the alertness and/or the tiredness is determined continuously during operation of the vehicle and the indication time is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 15: wherein the alertness and/or the tiredness is determined continuously during operation of the vehicle and the indication time is determined based on the determined alertness and/or tiredness (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, determining individual reaction time to use in driver assistance system for increased safety and awareness, warning adjusted based upon reaction time; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 16: wherein a position of at least one hand of the user is determined and the position of the at least one hand is taken into account during the determination of the individual reaction factor based on the user action time (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, detection area including steering wheel and hands of the vehicles user; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 17: wherein a position of at least one hand of the user is determined and the position of the at least one hand is taken into account during the determination of the individual reaction factor based on the user action time (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, detection area including steering wheel and hands of the vehicles user; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 18: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 19: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 20: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 21: wherein the individual reaction factor of the user is additionally determined based on user data which describe the user and/or driving behavior of the user (see Rank at least Abstract and fig. 1, reaction time of driver in association with other metrics of the driver; and see Christoph at least fig. 2-4; and see 457 at least Abstract and fig. 1-5).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
Christoph, Rank and 457 disclose claim 26: A driver assistance system for a vehicle the driver assistance system comprising:
an electronic control unit configured to control operation of the driver assistance system to assist a user of the vehicle during maneuvering of the vehicle on a multi-lane road; and a plurality of environment sensors configured to detect objects and other road users in an environment of the vehicle; wherein the electronic control unit is configured to receive a travel command to maneuver the vehicle from a second lane of the road across a first lane of the road onto an exit of the road; search for a free gap for the vehicle between road users in the first lane; issue an indication to the user to actuate an operator control element to initiate a lane change maneuver from the second lane into the free gap in the first lane, wherein the indication is issued at an indication time; determine a total reaction time which describes a duration between the issuing of the indication and the initiation of the lane change maneuver; determine an individual reaction factor of the user based on the total reaction time; and adapt the indication time for subsequent maneuvering of the vehicle based on the individual reaction factor; wherein the indication time is additionally determined based on an indication type which describes whether the indication is issued visually, audibly and/or haptically (see claim 1).
Motivation to combine Christoph, Rank and 457 in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 10 above.
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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights