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
Examiner’s Response re: Claim Objection
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 14 Apr 2026, with respect to Claim 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objection of Claim 30 has been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 14 Apr 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12, 22, and 27 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kume, Sham, and Xu.
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al., US 20250249924 A1 (herein, Kume), in view Sham et al., US 20220404823 A1 (herein, Sham), and in further view of Xu et al., US 20220013014 A1 (herein, Xu).
Regarding Claims 11, 21, and 26, Kume discloses, a method for operating a hands-off driving function of an automated motor vehicle (¶[0071] – “The hands-off level 2 mode is an operation mode that does not require the driver to hold the steering wheel, in other words, it is an operation mode that allows hands-off driving.”), the method comprising:
Claim 21 preamble - A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing commands which, upon execution of the commands by a computer (¶[0183] – “The computer program may be stored as instructions executed by a computer on a computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium.”), prompt the computer to carry out a method comprising:
Claim 26 preamble - A data processing device for an automated motor vehicle (¶[0067] – “The automated driving ECU 30 is an ECU that executes some or all of the driving operations in place of the driver…”), wherein the data processing device is configured to carry out a method comprising:
determining a first lane model based on image data of a camera installed on the automated motor vehicle, a field of view of which covers at least a part of surroundings of the automated motor vehicle (¶[0085] – “The subject-vehicle lane number may be identified from the map data and the subject-vehicle position data. The identification of the subject-vehicle lane number may be carried out by the camera 111…”);
determining a trajectory of the automated motor vehicle based on the first lane model (¶[0085] – “…the road structure may be identified using map data or the trajectory information of the forward vehicle.”);
controlling automated driving along the determined trajectory (¶[0143] – “… The hands-off capable mode is an operating mode in which the vehicle substantially drives automatically and the driver's hands-off is permitted…”).
Kume discloses automated driving, first lane model and trajectory but does not disclose,
safeguarding the automated driving, the first lane model, and/or the determined trajectory based on sensor data.
However, Sham teaches,
safeguarding the automated driving, the first lane model, and/or the determined trajectory based on sensor data (¶[0051] – “… the lane path management system 200, including: (i) the lane path data repository 202 to ensure the lane path data repository 202 has the most accurate lane path descriptors…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle as disclosed by Kume to include the safeguarding of the determined trajectory based on the sensor data as taught by Sham. Doing so, provides an increased level of safety due to the safeguard of the autonomous vehicle and passenger/driver during driving operations.
Modified Kume teaches automated driving and vehicle and sensor data but does not disclose, wherein the safeguarding of the automated driving includes detecting a lane departure of the automated motor vehicle based on the sensor data.
However, Xu teaches, wherein the safeguarding of the automated driving includes detecting a lane departure of the automated motor vehicle based on the sensor data (FIG. 1 and ¶[0081] – “…the vehicles 101, for instance, are part of a probe-based system for collecting probe data and/or sensor data for detecting traffic incidents (e.g., lane departure events) and/or measuring traffic conditions in a road network. In one embodiment, each vehicle 101 is configured to report probe data as probe points, which are individual data records collected at a point in time that records telemetry data for that point in time. In one embodiment, the probe ID can be permanent or valid for a certain period of time. In one embodiment, the probe ID is cycled, particularly for consumer-sourced data, to protect the privacy of the source.”).
Regarding Claims 13, 23, and 28, modified Kume further teaches, wherein the lane departure is detected based on vibrations in a chassis of the automated motor vehicle and/or interior acoustics of the automated motor vehicle (¶[0102] – “…Notification in the subtle mode refers to a notification that mainly involves image display, without applying vibration to the driver, and with the output volume of the notification sound set to a predetermined level or lower…”).
Regarding Claims 14, 15, 16, 24, and 29, modified Kume further teaches, wherein the safeguarding of the automated driving includes monitoring an acceleration of the automated motor vehicle (¶[0075] – “…, the automated driving ECU 30 performs control for autonomous driving of the vehicle even while in the Level 2 mode. In other words, it performs the recognition of the driving environment, planning of the driving trajectory, and reflection/feedback into the control. Reflection into the control includes speed adjustments through acceleration and deceleration,…”).
Regarding Claims 17, 18, 19, and 25 modified Kume further teaches, wherein the safeguarding of the first lane model and/or the determined trajectory includes determining a second lane model based on the sensor data (FIG. 3 illustrates second lane change and ¶[0085] – “…dentification of the subject-vehicle lane number may be carried out by the camera 111 or the locator 13. The weather and road conditions can be identified by combining the recognition results of the camera 111 with the weather…”).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Kume further teaches, An automated motor vehicle (See above Claim Objection) comprising the data processing device according to claim 26 (ECU – 30).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al., US 20250249924 A1 (herein, Kume), in view of Sham et al., US 20220404823 A1 (herein, Sham), and in further view of Jeschke et al., US 20160217688 A1 (herein, Jes).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kume teaches the first and second lane model and the trajectory but does not teach, wherein the safeguarding of the first lane model and/or the determined trajectory includes a plausibility check in which the first lane model is checked for plausibility based on the second lane model.
However, Jes teaches, wherein the safeguarding of the first lane model and/or the determined trajectory includes a plausibility check in which the first lane model is checked for plausibility based on the second lane model (FIG. 4 and ¶[0052] – “…at least one direction-dependent traffic sign 20 is detected by video sensor system 21 of motor vehicle 7, as shown in FIG. 4. …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the autonomous vehicle as disclosed by modified Kume to include a plausibility check a as taught by Jes. Doing so, provides an increased level of safety due to the addition of a plausibility check for the second lane model.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights