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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, Fig. 2, are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels, “1. In bracket 1, insert the reason for the objection, for example the drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims-- or --the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels” [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 14-23 and 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.
As to claims 14 and dependent claims 15-23, the listing using multiple “and/or” (in claim 14) makes it unclear as to what is required in the claims or not. Examiner recommends “at least one of” language.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process
As to claim 14-25 the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 14-25 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (Process claims 14-23 and apparatus for claim 24-25).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 24 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 24 recites:
A processing device for controlling a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle, wherein the processing device is configured to:
acquire an item of information that indicates an upcoming intervention of the driver assistance system in guidance of the motor vehicle;
acquire an item of information about an attentiveness state of a driver of the motor vehicle; and
generate control signals to provide an advance warning before the intervention, wherein the control signals are generated in such a way that:
the advance warning comprises an optical, acoustic, or haptic first warning signal, and
the advance warning comprises, in addition to the first warning signal, a second warning signal in a form of a kinesthetic jerk in response to the driver being determined to be inattentive according to the acquired information about his attentiveness state. (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a personlooking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”) See above.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 24 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of “processing device” that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing device to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Here the acquiring of data is not significantly more based on that case law.
Dependent claim(s) 15-23 and 25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 15-23 and 25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 14 and 24.
Therefore, claim(s) 14-25 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step. The wording of the claims requires just a signal being created for the purpose of making the particular warnings. It does not actually control a device to make the warnings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-18 and 22-225 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE102007060862A1 hereinafter Schwertberger.
As to claim 14, Schwertberger discloses a method for operating a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle [Schwertberger: 0022], the method comprising:
acquiring an item of information [Schwertberger: 0007, 0025 “Various types of environmental sensors can be used to detect the traffic environment, for example a radar system, a lidar sensor system and/or image processing systems.”] that indicates an upcoming intervention of the driver assistance system in guidance of the motor vehicle [Schwertberger: 0019-0020 “Firstly, the driver of the first following vehicle F1 can change lanes from the first to the second lane FS1, FS2, thus preventing a collision with the second vehicle F2 driving ahead. Alternatively, emergency braking can be performed by the driver of the first vehicle F1 or automatically by the emergency braking assistance system BS, thereby at least limiting the extent of the collision. Finally, the driver of the first vehicle F1 still has the option of swerving towards the parking lane SF or... Green strip GS of the roadway FB. The described reaction possibilities of the driver are suitably supported according to the invention by the emergency brake assistance system BS, in particular by the timely initiation of an automated emergency braking process reducing their effect, whereby the emergency brake assistance system BS only intervenes in an emergency situation, i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”];
providing an 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 [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”]
wherein the first warning signal is output optically and/or acoustically and/or haptically [Schwertberger: 0036 “If the remaining time T until the collision occurs is insufficient to change lanes from the currently used first lane FS1 to the adjacent second lane FS2, a first driver warning message WS1 is generated, which includes at least a visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver.”], and the second warning signal comprises a kinesthetic jerk [Schwertberger: 0037 “For example, if the driver also activates the brake pedal or if a speed control system ("cruise control") provided in the vehicle F1 is activated, a slight warning braking ("brake jolt") is generated by the braking system BSS in addition to the optical and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning as part of the first driver warning WS1. For this purpose, the control unit CU generates a first control signal ss1, which is intended for controlling the brake system BSS of the vehicle F1. The first control signal ss1 is transmitted to the braking system BSS. By means of a preferably short-term light warning braking, the driver of vehicle F1 is additionally warned of the impending collision between the two vehicles F1 and F2.”]; and
providing a main warning subsequent to the advance warning before the intervention, wherein the main warning comprises an acoustic and/or an optical warming signal [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”, 0040-0041].
As to claim 15, Schwertberger discloses wherein the kinesthetic jerk comprises a temporary change of a longitudinal acceleration of the motor vehicle [Schwertberger: 0037 “brake jerk”].
As to claim 16, Schwertberger discloses wherein the longitudinal acceleration is changed in relation to a driver-controlled specification [Schwertberger: 0037 braking in relation to the ACC].
As to claim 17, Schwertberger discloses wherein the longitudinal acceleration is changed with a predetermined course [Schwertberger: 0037 braking in relation to the ACC].
As to claim 18, Schwertberger discloses wherein the kinesthetic jerk is executed so that it has a duration in a range of 300 ms to 1500 ms [Schwertberger: 0038, 0.5-1 second].
As to claim 22, Schwertberger discloses comprising: determining a degree of attentiveness of the driver, wherein the advance warning having the second warning signal is only provided if it is determined that the driver is inattentive [Schwertberger: 0020 “i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”].
As to claim 23, Schwertberger discloses comprising: determining whether a predetermined reaction of the driver to the advance warning takes place in a predetermined time [Schwertberger: 0004 “The fulfillment of the specified warning condition indicates that, after a specified warning period, the automatic emergency braking process must be triggered to prevent a collision between a first vehicle and a second vehicle driving ahead.”], wherein the main warning is only provided if the predetermined reaction of the driver does not occur over the predetermined time [Schwertberger: 0020 “i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”].
As to claim 24, Schwertberger discloses a processing device for controlling a driver assistance system of a motor vehicle, wherein the processing device is configured to:
acquire an item of information [Schwertberger: 0007, 0025 “Various types of environmental sensors can be used to detect the traffic environment, for example a radar system, a lidar sensor system and/or image processing systems.”] that indicates an upcoming intervention of the driver assistance system in guidance of the motor vehicle [Schwertberger: 0019-0020 “Firstly, the driver of the first following vehicle F1 can change lanes from the first to the second lane FS1, FS2, thus preventing a collision with the second vehicle F2 driving ahead. Alternatively, emergency braking can be performed by the driver of the first vehicle F1 or automatically by the emergency braking assistance system BS, thereby at least limiting the extent of the collision. Finally, the driver of the first vehicle F1 still has the option of swerving towards the parking lane SF or... Green strip GS of the roadway FB. The described reaction possibilities of the driver are suitably supported according to the invention by the emergency brake assistance system BS, in particular by the timely initiation of an automated emergency braking process reducing their effect, whereby the emergency brake assistance system BS only intervenes in an emergency situation, i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”];
acquire an item of information about an attentiveness state of a driver of the motor vehicle [Schwertberger: 0020 “i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”];
and generate control signals to provide an advance warning before the intervention, wherein the control signals are generated in such a way that [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”]:
the advance warning comprises an optical, acoustic, or haptic first warning signal [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”], and
the advance warning comprises, in addition to the first warning signal, a second warning signal in a form of a kinesthetic jerk [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”, 0040-0041] in response to the driver being determined to be inattentive according to the acquired information about his attentiveness state [Schwertberger: 0020 “i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.” Driver not attentive enough to respond in time or at all to prior warnings.];
As to claim 25, Schwertberger discloses wherein the processiing device is further configured to: determine whether a predetermined reaction of the driver to the advance warning takes place in a predetermined time[Schwertberger: 0004 “The fulfillment of the specified warning condition indicates that, after a specified warning period, the automatic emergency braking process must be triggered to prevent a collision between a first vehicle and a second vehicle driving ahead.”]; and generate control signals to provide a main warning subsequent to the advance warning before the intervention if the predetermined reaction of the driver does not take place over the predetermined time, wherein the main warning comprises an acoustic and/or an optical warning signal [Schwertberger: 0020 “i.e. the emergency brake assistance system BS only becomes effective in the case of faulty, too late or omitted driver reactions.”].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwertberger.
As to claims 19-21, Schwertberger discloses applying a deceleration as a warning this is the same reason of applicant. The ranges and description of the decelerations do not explicitly disclose the ranges or deceleration parameters. However, given the disclosure of Schwertberger an a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing could exercise routine skill to change the deceleration parameters to meet the design criteria (driver feel, vehicle properties, road conditions, etc.) as this only requires using a known device (Schwertberger) in a known way (warn with a kinesthetic jerk as done in Schwertberger) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of meeting a design criteria (feel, road conditions, vehicle properties).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwertberger in view of US 11066072 B2 hereinafter Kim..
As to claim 26, Schwertberger discloses a motor vehicle having a driver assistance system, wherein the motor vehicle comprises: the processing device according to claim 24 [See claim 24]; an optical, acoustic, or haptic first output device for providing the first warning signal in dependence on the control signals [Schwertberger: 0009, “In this process, at least one visual and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning to the driver is carried out as part of the first to third driver warning.”; an electric drive machine; and a control device for the electric drive machine, wherein the control device is configured to change a longitudinal acceleration of the motor vehicle in dependence on the control signals by the [Schwertberger: 0037 “For example, if the driver also activates the brake pedal or if a speed control system ("cruise control") provided in the vehicle F1 is activated, a slight warning braking ("brake jolt") is generated by the braking system BSS in addition to the optical and/or acoustic and/or haptic warning as part of the first driver warning WS1. For this purpose, the control unit CU generates a first control signal ss1, which is intended for controlling the brake system BSS of the vehicle F1. The first control signal ss1 is transmitted to the braking system BSS. By means of a preferably short-term light warning braking, the driver of vehicle F1 is additionally warned of the impending collision between the two vehicles F1 and F2.”].
Schwertberger is silent on the drive motor of the vehicle. However, Kim discloses driver assistance in a electric vehicle [Kim: “The vehicle in this specification may be a concept including a car, a motorcycle, and the like. Further, the vehicle may be a concept including both an internal combustion engine vehicle having an engine as a power source, a hybrid vehicle having an engine and an electric motor as a power source, and an electric vehicle having an electric motor as a power source”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the drive motor in to be an electric motor as disclosed in Kim as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results for the benefit of being used in more vehicles.
Conclusion
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