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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 09/27/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 14 line 4 “or” should read --and/or--.
At claim 15 line 1 “factor)” should read --factor--.
At claim 16 line 11 “speeds” should read --speed--.
At claim 17 line 1 “factor)” should read --factor--.
At claim 20 line 5 “torque,;” should read --torque;--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. states in computer-implemented functional claims the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the steering angle speed as a permitted steering angle speed; the steering angle as a permitted steering angle; or using the manual torque as a permitted manual torque” in lines 3-5. The disclosed algorithm discloses the permitted values being based on (i.e., by a predetermined map, see B1, B6, and B13 respectively in Figs. 3-5) the respective detected values rather than the permitted values taking the value of the detected values as claimed. As such, the claim is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement as Applicant has not disclosed an algorithm wherein the detected values are taken as the permitted values. See related rejection of claims 16, 18, and 20 under 112(b) below. This rejection may be overcome by amending claim 14 as follows:
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13, wherein the permitted steering intervention is defined upon detection of the manual steering intervention wherein:
is based on the detected steering angle speed;
is based on the detected steering angle; and/or
is based on the detected manual torque.
Claims 15-20 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the steering intervention” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the steering intervention of the ADAS introduced at line 1 or the manual steering intervention introduced at line 3. For examination purposes the limitation “steering intervention” in lines 1 and 5 have been considered as --assistance steering intervention--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a permitted steering intervention is predefined based on a driving speed of the vehicle” in lines 1-2. The limitation is indefinite because if the permitted steering intervention is based upon the vehicle speed, then the permitted steering intervention is not predefined even if it is based on a predefined function of the vehicle speed. For examination purposes the term “predefined” has been considered as --defined--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the permitted steering intervention is predefined upon detection of the manual steering intervention” in lines 1-2. The limitation is indefinite because if the permitted steering intervention is based upon detection of the manual steering intervention, then the permitted steering intervention is not predefined. For examination purposes the term “predefined” has been considered as --defined--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the permitted steering angle speed predefined using the detected steering angle speed and the driving speed” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether this is the same permitted steering angle speed as introduced at claim 14 line 3. For examination purposes claim 15 has been considered as reciting at the beginning of the claim --wherein the permitted steering angle speed is defined using the detected steering angle speed and the driving speed--.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected for analogous reasons relating to claim 14. Also see rejection of claim 14 under 112(a) above.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a deviation of an amount of the detected steering angle speed from the permitted steering angle speed” in lines 3-4. The limitation is unclear because at claim 14 line 3 the permitted steering angle speed takes the value of the detected steering angle speed, as such the deviation recited in claim 16 would always be zero.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a deviation of an amount of the detected steering angle from the permitted steering angle” in lines 3-4. The limitation is unclear because at claim 14 line 4 the permitted steering angle takes the value of the detected steering angle, as such the deviation recited in claim 18 would always be zero.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the detected manual torque is compared with the reduced manual torque” in line 5 where the reduced manual torque is formed by subtracting a defined constant value from the permitted manual torque (claim 20 lines 3-4). The limitation in line 5 is unclear because at claim 14 line 5 the permitted manual torque takes the value of the detected manual torque, as such the deviation recited in claim 20 would always be equal to the defined constant value.
The above rejections of claims 16, 18, and 20 may be overcome by amending claim 14 according to:
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 13, wherein the permitted steering intervention is predefineddefined upon detection of the manual steering intervention usingwherein:
the steering angle speed as a permitted steering angle speed is based on the detected steering angle speed;
the steering angle as a permitted steering angle is based on the detected steering angle; and/or
using the manual torque as a permitted manual torque is based on the detected manual torque.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the steering intervention” in line 8. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the steering intervention of the ADAS introduced at claim 11 line 1 or the manual steering intervention introduced at claim 11 line 3. For examination purposes the limitation “steering intervention” in claim 11 line 1 and claim 16 line 8 have been considered as --assistance steering intervention--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a permitted steering angle predefined using the detected steering angle and the driving speed” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether this is the same permitted steering angle as introduced at claim 14 line 4. For examination purposes claim 17 has been considered as reciting at the beginning of the claim --wherein the permitted steering angle is defined using the detected steering angle and the driving speed--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the steering intervention” in line 8. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the steering intervention of the ADAS introduced at claim 11 line 1 or the manual steering intervention introduced at claim 11 line 3. For examination purposes the limitation “steering intervention” in claim 11 line 1 and claim 18 line 8 have been considered as --assistance steering intervention--.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites a method for limiting a steering intervention of a driver assistance system of a vehicle, the method comprising (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
detecting a manual steering intervention of a driver of the vehicle;
generating a manipulated variable of the driver assistance system for the steering intervention;
determining, based on the detected manual steering intervention of the driver and a predefined permitted steering intervention of the driver, a weighting factor; and
multiplying the manipulated variable by the weighting factor.
The analysis of claim 11 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations (b) and (c).
The mathematical concept of limitation (d).
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitation (a).
The additional element (a) is considered insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity necessary for performance of the abstract ideas.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional element (a) only generally links the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) and support extra-solution mere data gathering steps required for limitations (b)-(d).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 12 and 14-20 do not recite any further additional elements capable of integrating the judicial exceptions into a practical application or providing an inventive concept.
Claim 13 only further defines the data gathering step of limitation (a) at a high level of generality.
These rejections may be overcome by amending claim 11 to recite controlling a steering actuator based on the product of the manipulated variable and the weighting factor.
Closest Prior Art
AKATSUKA (US 2017/0217477, provided by Applicant on 09/27/2024 IDS) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11, AKATSUKA discloses a method for limiting a steering intervention of a driver assistance system (16 and part of 30, Fig. 2) of a vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting a manual steering intervention of a driver of the vehicle (40, Fig. 2, 0070 lines 4-6);
generating a manipulated variable (u1,u3, Fig. 19) of the driver assistance system for the steering intervention (u1,u3 are based on θ*, Fig. 19);
determining, based on the detected manual steering intervention of the driver (Ts, S110, Fig. 3), a weighting factor (α, S120, Fig. 3); and
multiplying the manipulated variable by the weighting factor (S960,S970, Fig. 20).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “determining, based on the detected manual steering intervention of the driver and a predefined permitted steering intervention of the driver, a weighting factor” in the manner defined in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747