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 .
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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments and amendments, filed June 11th, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration of amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below in view of Kikuchi (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0311952 A1).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Braunagel et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0370542 A1), herein “Braunagel”, in view of Kikuchi (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0311952 A1), filed March 29th, 2023.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Braunagel discloses a vehicle control device and vehicle control method comprising:
a steering wheel configured to specify a driving direction of a host vehicle (See 0014, “[…] driver intervention is a steering intervention due to a steering wheel actuation […]” Examiner notes steering intervention by a steering wheel means it is a conventional steering wheel controlling direction); and
a processor (See 0013, “[…] transfers the driving task to a driver assistance system of the vehicle, which is set up for carrying out the driving function.”),
wherein the processor is configured to
determine that the host vehicle is under autonomous driving control (See 0004, “[…] deactivating an automated driving function of a vehicle, in particular of a highly automated or autonomous driving function […]”),
determine, based on a maximum deceleration value among decelerations of the host vehicle measured during a specified time (See 0004, “[…] the driving function is then deactivated and the driving task is therefore transferred to the driver when the driver intervention exceeds a deactivation threshold, wherein the deactivation threshold is predetermined depending on the operation time of the driving function, i.e., depending on the time which has elapsed since the activation of the driving function. Alternatively, or additionally, the deactivation threshold can also be specified depending on the responsiveness of the driver.” See also 0014, “[…] driver intervention is a steering intervention due to a steering wheel actuation or a pedal intervention, for example a brake intervention due to a brake pedal actuation or an accelerator pedal intervention due to an accelerator pedal actuation. A separate deactivation threshold is assigned to each of these interventions […] the driving function is deactivated when the driver requests a drive torque by the accelerator pedal actuation, the drive torque being greater than the deactivation threshold assigned to the accelerator pedal intervention, or the driving function is deactivated when the driver requests a braking torque by the brake pedal actuation, the braking torque being greater than the deactivation threshold assigned to the brake engagement […]” Examiner notes a threshold value is determined based on driver intervention through actuation of pedals and brakes, thus being the same as being based on both acceleration and deceleration values. Furthermore, the threshold determination is dependent upon operation time of the driving function, and exceeding a threshold for deactivation of the driving function based on braking torque is the same as a maximum deceleration value); and
switch control of driving of the host vehicle from a system for performing the autonomous driving control to a driver based on the steering wheel being operated with an amount of operation greater than the threshold value or for a time greater than the threshold time value (See 0004 and 0014 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose a threshold value or a threshold time value for an operation of the steering wheel.
Kikuchi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a threshold value or a threshold time value for an operation of the steering wheel (See 0056, "[…] control unit 33 determines that the driver has performed takeover operation […] torque applied to the steering wheel indicated by a steering torque detection signal received from the steering device 6 is not less than a predetermined torque value […] when it is detected that the driver has operated the steering wheel […] has held the steering wheel from the touch sensor 7 and the amount of pressing-down of the accelerator indicated by an accelerator operation signal received from the accelerator device 8 is not less than a predetermined amount.").
In view of Kikuchi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the dynamic vehicle-based threshold adjustment techniques as disclosed by Braunagel, adapting steering-related control parameters in response to vehicle deceleration or other dynamic operating conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have predictably improved the robustness and responsiveness of driver takeover determination by tailoring steering operation thresholds to the current vehicle dynamics, thereby enhancing vehicle stability and safety under varying driving conditions. The combination merely applies a known control parameter adaptation technique to the known automated driving takeover system.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Braunagel further discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1 and vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein, in a failure situation in which the steering wheel is not operated by the autonomous driving control (See 0002-0003, “One disadvantage of this method is that the driver can also deactivate the driving function by an accidental actuation of the steering wheel, the brake pedal or the accelerator pedal and thus no longer receives any system support for avoiding collisions […] directed to a method and corresponding driver assistance function with which accidental deactivations of an automated driving function can be avoided.”), the processor is configured to:
determine the threshold value based on a specified threshold value (See 0017-0018, “[…] the deactivation threshold Es(t) is set to a first threshold value E1 […] deactivation threshold Es(t) is reduced within a predetermined time window t0 to t1 up to the pre-set threshold value E0 and kept constant at this value thereafter.”); and
determine the threshold time value based on a specified threshold time value (See 0017-0018 as referenced above).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Braunagel further discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1 and vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the threshold value to be a first value based on the maximum deceleration value being a first magnitude (See 0005, “[…] deactivation threshold is thus variable and is adapted to the operating state of the vehicle, namely to the operation time of the driving function, or to the state of the driver, by means of its variation.” Examiner notes the operating state of the vehicle is the same as the vehicle’s dynamic conditions, thus including a magnitude of deceleration); and
determine the threshold value to be a second value greater than the first value based on the maximum deceleration value being a second magnitude greater than the first magnitude (See 0021-0022, “[…] deactivation threshold Es(t) is increased by an adaptation value ΔEr, which is conditional on the response, to a third threshold value E3, i.e. E3=E0+ΔEr. This rise remains as long as the driver is inattentive. If it is then determined that the driver is attentive again, i.e., when his responsiveness is high again, the deactivation threshold Es(t) is reduced to the pre-set threshold value E0 again […] The lower the responsiveness of the driver or the attentiveness of the driver is, the higher the adaptation value ΔEr, which is conditional on the response, is set, and the higher the deactivation threshold Es(t) will then be.” Examiner notes thresholds increase with lower driver responsiveness. Similarly, in a deceleration operation of the vehicle, it is standard to adjust the thresholds based on the magnitude of the deceleration at different points in time).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Braunagel further discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1 and vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine the threshold time value to be a third value based on the maximum deceleration value being a third magnitude (See 0005 as referenced above. Examiner notes the thresholds are dependent on operational states of the vehicle over operational time, and thus include multiple values of deceleration magnitude as the vehicle is moving); and
determine the threshold time value to be a fourth value greater than the third value based on the maximum deceleration value being a fourth magnitude greater than the third magnitude (See 0021-0022 as referenced above. Examiner notes the thresholds and threshold timings can be altered based on vehicle and driver states, thus supporting altering threshold-time values based on the multiple deceleration magnitudes in different dynamic scenarios).
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Braunagel et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0370542 A1) in view of Kikuchi (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0311952 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fujikawa et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0022374 A1), herein “Fujikawa”.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Braunagel further discloses the vehicle control device of claim 1 and vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein:
a threshold time value determined based on the first weight value is greater than a threshold time value determined based on the second weight value (See 0005 and 0021-0022 as referenced above. Examiner notes Braunagel clearly discloses configuring deactivation thresholds for autonomous driving based on different parameters such as driver responsiveness, which includes grip strength of the steering wheel).
But does not explicitly disclose the threshold value of the threshold time value is further determined based on a grip strength with which the steering wheel is gripped; and
the processor is configured to:
assign a first weight value as an operation weight based on the grip strength being a first strength, and
assign a second weight value less than the first weight value as the operation weight based on the grip strength being a second strength greater than the first strength.
Fujikawa, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the threshold value of the threshold time value is further determined based on a grip strength with which the steering wheel is gripped (See 0044, “Steering wheel grip detection device 11 further includes electrostatic sensor circuit 25 that is electrically connected to the end of heater 23 to which inductance element 19 is electrically connected, or to the middle of the wiring path of heater 23, to detect a grip of the steering wheel […]”); and
the processor is configured to:
assign a first weight value as an operation weight based on the grip strength being a first strength (See 0048, “[…] steering wheel grip detection device 11 is incorporated into the rim of steering wheel 3. Based on such a configuration, steering wheel grip detection device 11 detects whether or not hand 41 is gripping the rim of steering wheel 3 and outputs the result.” See also 0053, “A grip of heater 23 with hand 41 causes the total capacitance of heater 23 to change due to the capacitance between hand 41 and heater […] Electrostatic sensor circuit 25 detects the change by means of an electric or electromagnetic field through sensor wire 37. Then, electrostatic sensor circuit 25 outputs the detection result to vehicle-side control circuit 39.” See also 0183, “Electrostatic sensor circuit 25 updates the reference value when hand 41 is not in contact with steering wheel 3 based on an open/closed state of thermostat 21 obtained from output of voltage detecting circuit 31 and output of current detecting circuit 33.” Examiner notes the steering wheel contains electrical components that are able to detect changes in electrical values representing the location, strength and duration of contact with the steering wheel by the driver, and that these values may be assigned a weight value to be referenced with a vehicle control parameter), and
assign a second weight value less than the first weight value as the operation weight based on the grip strength being a second strength greater than the first strength (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration).
In view of Fujikawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control as disclosed by Braunagel, the grip strength of the steering wheel to also act as a quantitative metric for determining driver responsiveness when setting operational thresholds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the deactivation logic already factors in a variety of thresholds types for driver intervention such as responsiveness, timing and intensity, and sensors on a steering wheel are known to transmit signals used in existing driver safety and monitoring systems to improve driver assistance functionality from automatic braking to vehicle responsiveness in complex or unpredictable events. Furthermore, converting sensor output into a scalar weight and using that weight as a parameter in a timing threshold is a basic control design decision, including the number of weight values assigned, since the art teaches towards variations in measurements and the ability to detect changes in grip strength through capacitance.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Braunagel in combination with Fujikawa teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5 and vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein:
the processor is configured to:
assign a third weight value as a time weight based on the grip strength being a third strength (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
assign a fourth weight value less than the third weight value as the time weight based on the grip strength being a fourth strength greater than the third strength (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
a threshold time value determined based on the third weight value is greater than a threshold time value determined based on the fourth weight value (See 0005 and 0021-0022 of Braunagel as referenced above. Examiner notes Braunagel clearly discloses configuring deactivation thresholds for autonomous driving based on different parameters such as driver responsiveness, which includes grip strength of the steering wheel).
In view of Fujikawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control as disclosed by Braunagel, the grip strength of the steering wheel to also act as a quantitative metric for determining driver responsiveness when setting operational thresholds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the deactivation logic already factors in a variety of thresholds types for driver intervention such as responsiveness, timing and intensity, and sensors on a steering wheel are known to transmit signals used in existing driver safety and monitoring systems to improve driver assistance functionality from automatic braking to vehicle responsiveness in complex or unpredictable events. Furthermore, converting sensor output into a scalar weight and using that weight as a parameter in a timing threshold is a basic control design decision, including the number of weight values assigned, since the art teaches towards variations in measurements and the ability to detect changes in grip strength through capacitance.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Braunagel in combination with Fujikawa teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5 and vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein:
the processor is configured to:
assign a fifth weight value as an operation weight, based on the driver not gripping the steering wheel (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
assign a sixth weight value less than the fifth weight value as the operation weight based on the driver gripping the steering wheel (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
a threshold value determined based on the fifth weight value is greater than a threshold value determined based on the sixth weight value (See 0005 and 0021-0022 of Braunagel as referenced above. Examiner notes Braunagel clearly discloses configuring deactivation thresholds for autonomous driving based on different parameters such as driver responsiveness, which includes grip strength of the steering wheel).
In view of Fujikawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control as disclosed by Braunagel, the grip strength of the steering wheel to also act as a quantitative metric for determining driver responsiveness when setting operational thresholds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the deactivation logic already factors in a variety of thresholds types for driver intervention such as responsiveness, timing and intensity, and sensors on a steering wheel are known to transmit signals used in existing driver safety and monitoring systems to improve driver assistance functionality from automatic braking to vehicle responsiveness in complex or unpredictable events. Furthermore, converting sensor output into a scalar weight and using that weight as a parameter in a timing threshold is a basic control design decision, including the number of weight values assigned, since the art teaches towards variations in measurements and the ability to detect changes in grip strength through capacitance.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Braunagel in combination with Fujikawa teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5 and vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein:
the processor is configured to:
assign a seventh weight value as a time weight, based on the driver not gripping the steering wheel (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
assign an eighth weight value less than the seventh weight value as the time weight based on the driver gripping the steering wheel (See 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the seven embodiments taught in Fujikawa show that there are an unbounded number of values that may be assigned to determine vehicle control using the detected variations in grip strength, location and duration), and
a threshold time value determined based on the seventh weight value is greater than a threshold time value determined based on the eighth weight value (See 0005 and 0021-0022 of Braunagel as referenced above. Examiner notes Braunagel clearly discloses configuring deactivation thresholds for autonomous driving based on different parameters such as driver responsiveness, which includes grip strength of the steering wheel).
In view of Fujikawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control as disclosed by Braunagel, the grip strength of the steering wheel to also act as a quantitative metric for determining driver responsiveness when setting operational thresholds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the deactivation logic already factors in a variety of thresholds types for driver intervention such as responsiveness, timing and intensity, and sensors on a steering wheel are known to transmit signals used in existing driver safety and monitoring systems to improve driver assistance functionality from automatic braking to vehicle responsiveness in complex or unpredictable events. Furthermore, converting sensor output into a scalar weight and using that weight as a parameter in a timing threshold is a basic control design decision, including the number of weight values assigned, since the art teaches towards variations in measurements and the ability to detect changes in grip strength through capacitance.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Braunagel in combination with Fujikawa teaches the vehicle control device of claim 1 and vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein the threshold value or the threshold time value is determined by applying a weighting value corresponding to the grip strength to a first threshold value or a first threshold time value determined based on the maximum deceleration value (See 0004-0005, 0014 and 0021-0022 of Braunagel as referenced above. See also 0044, 0048, 0053 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above.).
In view of Fujikawa’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control as disclosed by Braunagel, the grip strength of the steering wheel to also act as a quantitative metric weighed for determining driver responsiveness when setting operational thresholds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the deactivation logic already factors in a variety of thresholds types for driver intervention such as responsiveness, timing and intensity, and sensors on a steering wheel are known to transmit signals used in existing driver safety and monitoring systems to improve driver assistance functionality from automatic braking to vehicle responsiveness in complex or unpredictable events. Furthermore, converting sensor output into a scalar weight and using that weight as a parameter in a timing threshold is a basic control design decision, including the number of weight values assigned, since the art teaches towards variations in measurements and the ability to detect changes in grip strength through capacitance.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Braunagel et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0370542 A1) in view of Kikuchi (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0311952 A1) and Fujikawa et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0022374 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Svensson et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2012/0265403 A1), herein “Svensson”.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Braunagel in combination with Fujikawa teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5 and vehicle control method of claim 15, wherein:
the processor is configured to identify the grip strength based on at least one of a contact area between the driver and the steering wheel, a distance between the driver and the steering wheel, or any combination thereof (See 0048 and 0183 of Fujikawa as referenced above. Examiner notes the sensors within the rim of the steering wheel provide contact area between the driver’s hands and the steering wheel);
the grip strength is identified through a touch sensor included in the steering wheel (See Abstract of Fujikawa, “[…] an electrostatic sensor circuit that detects a grip of the steering wheel […]” Examiner notes the electrostatic sensor is a touch sensor).
But does not explicitly teach the amount of operation of the steering wheel is identified through a torque sensor included in the steering wheel.
Svensson, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the amount of operation of the steering wheel is identified through a torque sensor included in the steering wheel (See 0042, “[…] the torque sensor 10 detects, as the steering torque applied to the steering wheel, a relative displacement in a circumferential direction […]”).
In view of Svensson’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the vehicle control device and method for determining whether a threshold is met in order to switch from autonomous driving control to manual driving control, including the grip of the steering wheel as disclosed by Braunagel in view of Fujikawa, the steering wheel to either include a touch sensor or a torque sensor, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the electrostatic sensor in the steering wheel of Fujikawa already explicitly teaches being a touch sensor, and replacing the sensor with a torque sensor simply provides different quantitative metrics that are able to determine operational thresholds for vehicle control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights