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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 5/26/2026 overcome all rejections other than the 112(b) rejection. Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cites MPEP 608.01(n) the section that deals with product by process claims and how those may be independent when structured similar to Applicant’s claims. This section is not applicable to Applicant’s claims or the rejection herein because, first, Applicant’s claims are not product by process type claims (the processing device of claim 24 does not make the motor vehicle of claim 26). Second, the section of MPEP cited is in the multiple dependents claims section – theses claims are not that format. Third, Applicant’s arguments would be directed to a 112(d) rejection - this rejection is a 112(b) rejection -CLARITY. The claim format is unclear because to the reasons listed in the rejection. Applicant’s arguments have not made the claim format structure any clearer. Examiner recommends again making claim 26 clearly independent or clearly dependent.
Drawings
Drawings filed 10/21/2024 are accepted.
Conforms with 35 USC § 101
The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 26 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. It is unclear if claim 26 is independent or dependent. The fee sheet dated 5/21/2025 treats the claim as dependent and the claim does reference another claim, but the claim alters the preamble of the claim which indicates that it is independent. The conflicting structure and referencing another claim make it unclear. Examiner recommends cutting and pasting the parts of claim 24 into claim 26 and making it clearly independent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-21, and 23-25, and 27 are allowed
Claim 26 are pending and are indicated as having allowable subject matter. If applicable, any remaining non-art rejections or formalities must be overcome prior to a notice of allowance.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 14 and 24 all of the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 14, A method for operating a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring an item of information that indicates an upcoming intervention of the driver assistance system in guidance of the motor vehicle; acquiring an item of information about an attentiveness state of the driver prior to providing an advance warning; providing the advance warning directed to a driver of the motor vehicle before the intervention, wherein the advance warning comprises a first and a second warning signal, outputting the first warning signal by at least one of: controlling a first optical device to output the first warning signal optically, controlling a first acoustic device to output the first warning signal acoustically, or controlling a haptic actuator to output the first warning signal haptically, and outputting the second warning signal by a controller controlling an acceleration or deceleration device to output a kinesthetic jerk in response to the driver being determined to be inattentive according to the acquired information about the attentiveness state, wherein the advance warning comprises only the first warning signal in response to the driver being determined to be attentive; and providing a main warning subsequent to the advance warning before the interventionThe combination taken with the claims not listed limitations may be patentable emphasizing the underlined limitation.
The closest prior art DE 102007060862 A1 discloses the system has a control unit determining a time period up to a start of a collision of two vehicles (F1, F2) i.e. lorry and passenger car, approximately. The control unit triggers a driver warning i.e. optical warning, when the determined collision time period falls below a lane changing time period, and triggers another driver warning i.e. acoustic warning, when the determined collision time period falls below a circular path avoiding time period. The control unit triggers a third driver warning i.e. haptic warning, when the determined time period falls below an emergency brake time period.
All dependent claims are allowable for at least the reasons of claim 14 and/or 24.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11590890 B2 The present teaching relates to method, system, and medium, for generating an augmented alert in a hybrid vehicle. First information indicating an upcoming switch in an operating mode of the vehicle is received, which specifies a set of tasks, arranged in an order, to be completed by a driver in the vehicle to achieve the upcoming switch, and a task duration for each of the set of tasks by which the task is to be completed. A current state of the driver is obtained and used to determine a set of warnings to alert the driver to perform the set of tasks. Each warning corresponds to a task in the set of tasks and is created based on the current state of the driver. A warning schedule is generated based on the set of warnings in the order of the set of tasks and transmitted so that warnings in the warning schedule are delivered to the driver.
US 11772677 B2 An apparatus for providing a notification of control authority transition in a vehicle is provided. The apparatus includes a speaker configured to output a sound notification, a vibration motor configured to output a vibration notification, and a control circuit configured to be electrically connected with the speaker and the vibration motor. The control circuit is configured to output a first notification using the speaker during a first time interval, when a situation to transfer control authority for the vehicle occurs, output a second notification using the speaker and the vibration motor during a second time interval, after the first time interval elapses, and output a third notification using the speaker and the vibration motor during a third time interval, after the second time interval elapses.
US 11912307 B2 Aspects of the disclosure relate to analyzing head movements in a test driver tasked with monitoring the driving of a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode. For instance, a sensor may be used to capture sensor data of a test driver's head for a period of time. The sensor data may be analyzed to determine whether the test driver's head moved sufficiently enough to suggest that the test driver is engaged in monitoring the driving of the vehicle. Based on the determination of whether the test driver's head moved sufficiently enough, an intervention response may be initiated.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights