DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Intended Use
2. Method claim 14 contains the embodiment “…such that the internal control information..” This embodiment has not been afforded patentable weight because it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP at 2111.04.
System claims 22 and 30 contain statements of intended use or field of use (e.g. “such that the internal control information…”, “ensuring that the internal control information). These statements of intended/field of use or wherein clauses are essentially method limitations, and have not been given their full patentable weight since they do not patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Additionally, the terms “configured to" or "arranged to" are considered to be structurally modified statements and are not intended use. Claims amended to include the above listed language may patentably distinguish themselves structurally.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wunderlich (US 2020/006225).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 27, Wunderlich discloses a method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium for operating a vehicle comprising at least one functional unit for carrying out a driving function of the vehicle (control unit 12 configured to issue vehicle control commands to steer, accelerate, and brake; Wunderlich at 0039), the functional unit being activatable by a control unit of the vehicle for performing the driving function automatically in an automated driving mode (authorization device 16 permits fully automated/semi-autonomous transition; Wunderlich at 0013, 0016, 0017), the method comprising:
Carrying out an initialization process for activating a manual driving mode for external activation of the driving function via an operating device (request to transition out of fully autonomous mode made via display and internal authorization and/or transmitting request to external authorization device; Wunderlich at 0015).
Obtaining external operating information for activation of the driving function in the manual driving mode from the operating device by the control unit (driver is authorized via internal or external authorization to gain limited manual control of vehicle if certain criteria are met; Wunderlich at abstract, 0015, 0016).
Wherein the operating information encompasses first operating data obtained by a first module of the control unit, and second operating data obtained by a second module of the control unit (driver identification, traffic, and temporal restrictions, sensor data; Wunderlich at 0016, 0029, 0041, 0042).
Transmitting internal control information for activating the driving function to the functional unit as a function of the external operating information by the control unit (semi-autonomous control is enabled after authorization and criteria are met; Wunderlich at 0016, 0018, 0021).
Regarding claim 12, 20, and 28, Wunderlich discloses herein the transmission of the internal control information is based on a plausibility check of the external operating information using the first operating data and the second operating data (user is credible based on sensed data; Wunderlich at 0029, 0030).
Regarding claim 13, 21, and 29, Wunderlich discloses wherein the first module comprises a first communication interface for obtaining the first operating data via a first communication channel (e.g. wired information; Wunderlich at 0040), and the second module comprises a second communication interface for obtaining the second operating data via a second communication channel (wireless; Wunderlich at 0040, 0041).
Regarding claims 15 and 23, Wunderlich discloses wherein the initialization process includes an authentication process for authenticating a user, wherein first authentication data is received by the first module and second authentication data is received by the second module during the authentication process (plurality of authentication information obtained vehicle control unit, authenticated by internal or external authentication devices; Wunderlich at 0040-0042), and the manual driving mode is activated as a function of the first authentication data and the second authentication data (authorization criteria met, semi-autonomous mode enabled; Wunderlich at 0029, 0030, 0041).
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Wunderlich discloses wherein position data for locating the user is detected during the initialization process, with the manual driving mode being activated as a function of the position data (criteria including driver is identified, authorized, sitting in the proper seat for controlling the vehicle; Wunderlich at 0039).
Regarding claims 17 and 25, Wunderlich discloses recognizing an emergency situation based on a user-initiated alert; generating automated operating information for activating the driving function by the control unit based on the recognition of the emergency situation; and transmitting internal control information for activating the driving function to the functional unit by the control unit as a function of the automated operating information (dangerous traffic situation criteria; Wunderlich at 0021, 0028).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
4a. Claims 14, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderlich, as a applied above, and further in view of Srinivasan (US 11,372,465).
Regarding said claims, Wunderlich is silent as to wherein first control data is transmitted via a first control channel and second control data is transmitted via a second control channel by the control unit during the transmission of the internal control information.
Srinivasan, in a similar invention in the same filed of endeavor, teaches implementing multiple buses between the controller and actuators (Srinivasan at col 16 lines 65-67, col 17 lines 1-18).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the base invention of Wunderlich with the multiple buses of Srinivasan. Doing so would provide redundancy in communicating commands for vehicle control.
4b. Claims 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wunderlich, as a applied above, and further in view of Kayano (US 2021/0213942).
Regarding said claims, as best understood, Wunderlich is silent as to wherein the automated operating information is generated to carry out an emergency stop process for decelerating the vehicle, and wherein the automated operating information is prioritized over the external operating information based on the recognition of the emergency situation.
Kayano teaches automated braking in a recognized emergency situation, such as collision avoidance, that will override externally issued operating information (Kayano at abstract, 0013).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention to augment the vehicle control of Wunderlich with the autonomous braking of Kayano. Doing so would provide for collision avoidance in the event the driver mistakenly operates the wrong driving input.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s contention (see pages 7-8 filed 28 November 2025) with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s contention (see pages 9-11 filed 28 November 2026) with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been fully considered and is not persuasive.
6a. Applicant has contended (see page 9) that Wunderlich does not disclose activating a manual driving mode, and cannot anticipate the “carrying out” limitation of claim 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; semi-autonomous driving does not equate to fully autonomous. Semi-autonomous includes some manual input (Wunderlich at 0006). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “a manual driving mode”1 and the definition found in the instant published specification at 00332, any degree of manual control constitutes “a manual driving mode”. Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, as cited above, still anticipates the ”carrying out” limitation of claim 11.
6b. Applicant has contended (see pages 9-10) that Wunderlich does not disclose the first half of the “obtaining external operating information” embodiment of claim 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; the equivalent control unit of Wunderlich receives authorization via devices external to the vehicle or internal to the vehicle. In both cases, the operating information is transmitted from sources external to the claimed control unit (Wunderlich at 0015, 0016). Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, as cited above, still anticipates the first half of the “obtaining external operating information” of claim 11 as broadest reasonably interpreted.
6c. Applicant has contended (see pages 9-10) that Wunderlich does not disclose the second half of the “obtaining external operating information” embodiment of claim 11 in that Wunderlich does not disclose first operating data, second operating data and the associated modules of the control unit.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; the equivalent control unit of Wunderlich receives operation data via in vehicle interface or from a wireless interface (Wunderlich at 0041, 0042).
Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, as cited above, still anticipates the second half of the “obtaining external operating information” of claim 11 as broadest reasonably interpreted.
6d. Applicant has contended (see page 10) that Wunderlich does not disclose the final embodiment of claim 11 in that Wunderlich does not disclose transmitting internal control information for activating any driving function.
The examiner disagrees; Wunderlich discloses that upon authorization, the authorization device signals the control unit that semi-autonomous control is enabled (Wunderlich at 0016, 0018, 0021, 0040). Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, as cited above, still anticipates the final embodiment of claim 11 as broadest reasonably interpreted.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action, which is incorporated herein.
7. Applicant has contended (see page 10) that in addition to those portions not disclosed by Wunderlich with respect to claim 11, Wunderlich does not disclose an plausibility check of external operation as recited in dependent claim 12.
As cited above, the enable signal provided by the authorization device is a result of authentication and certain conditions present in order for the driver to have semi-autonomous vehicle control is equivalent to the contested plausibility check (Wunderlich at 0029, 0030). Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, still anticipates claim 12 as broadest reasonably interpreted.
8. Applicant has contended (see pages 10-11) that in addition to those portions not disclosed by Wunderlich with respect to claim 11, Wunderlich does not disclose an plausibility check of external operation as recited in dependent claim 12.
The examiner respectfully disagrees; Wunderlich discloses wherein the first module comprises a first communication interface for obtaining the first operating data via a first communication channel (e.g. wired information; Wunderlich at 0040), and the second module comprises a second communication interface for obtaining the second operating data via a second communication channel (wireless; Wunderlich at 0040, 0041). Thus, the examiner maintains that Wunderlich, as cited above, still anticipates the final embodiment of claim 11 as broadest reasonably interpreted.
Although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds/rationales and applicable prior art for those reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
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 extension fee 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 JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
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 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.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 05 March 2026
1 When examining an application, personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
2 “activating at least one of the driving functions”