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 Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/12/2026. Claims 14, 16, and 19-26 are pending. Claims 15 and 17-18 have been cancelled. Claims 14, 19, and 21 have been amended. The objections to claims 19 and 20 and the 35 U.S.C. 35 112 rejections to claim 15 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument regarding the previous office action:
McGarry allegedly fails to teach or suggest the slowdown command including any type of purported result of a plausibility check, and therefore fails to teach the amended claim 1 limitation of “the transfer request signal additionally describes a result of a plausibility check”.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As applicant states, McGarry describes a call center performing verification, and if verification is successful, the call center providing a slowdown command. The slowdown command is only sent if verification is successful (par. 34, “Once verification is complete…”). Therefore, a slowdown command would intrinsically inform the results of verification. The claim language does not specify the contents of the plausibility check or what a description of a plausibility check must look like. Since McGarry’s verification is simply a “yes” or “no” question, the slowdown command itself is enough to describe the results.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 20-22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoche (US 20170008486 A1) in view of McGarry (US 20090248222 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Atoche teaches a method for transferring at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of a vehicle (selected vehicle 20) to an at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle (par. 10, automatic cruise control), the method comprising:
receiving a transfer request signal (Fig. 5, step 102 receive vehicle warning signal), the transfer request signal describing a transfer request to a driver of the vehicle to transfer the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle to the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle (par. 10, “par. 10, "suppressing the selected vehicle includes transmitting a vehicle-to-vehicle disabling signal from the host vehicle to the selected vehicle, and operating an electronic stability program of an electronic stability control unit or an automatic cruise control of the selected vehicle with the vehicle-to-vehicle disabling signal to limit speed of the selected vehicle”);
outputting a notification signal (Fig. 5, step 104), wherein the driver is notified on the basis of the notification signal of the transfer request to transfer the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance to the at least partially automated driving function (par. 43, "outputting a visual command provided on the display 74 of the selected vehicle 20 in response to the vehicle-to-vehicle warning signal");
and taking over of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle (Fig. 5, 108 halt selected vehicle);
wherein the notification signal is received as a result of an instruction originating from a further road user in surroundings of the vehicle (Fig. 1, host vehicle 10 sends signal to selected vehicle 20);
and wherein the at least partially automated driving function takes over the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle in such a way that the vehicle executes the instruction of the further road user in an at least partially automated manner (par. 10, “par. 10, "suppressing the selected vehicle includes transmitting a vehicle-to-vehicle disabling signal from the host vehicle to the selected vehicle, and operating an electronic stability program of an electronic stability control unit or an automatic cruise control of the selected vehicle with the vehicle-to-vehicle disabling signal to limit speed of the selected vehicle”);
wherein the transfer request signal provided by the further road user is at least indirectly received from the further road user (par. 42, "At a first step 102, the selected vehicle suppression system 50 receives a vehicle-to-vehicle warning signal that is transmitted to the selected vehicle 20 by the host vehicle transceiver 34 of the host vehicle selection and suppression system 22");
Atoche fails to teach the transfer request signal received from the further road user in the surroundings of the vehicle is received indirectly via a plausibility check server; and wherein the further road user transmits at least one plausibility check variable to the plausibility check server and the transfer request signal additionally describes a result of a plausibility check.
However, McGarry teaches the transfer request signal received from the further road user in the surroundings of the vehicle is received indirectly via a plausibility check server (par. 33, "The method 300 begins at step 302 where the call center is contacted by the pursuing officer or other person on behalf of the police. There, the call center verifies that the customer has authorized use of the slowdown assistance services");
and wherein the further road user transmits at least one plausibility check variable to the plausibility check server and the transfer request signal additionally describes a result of a plausibility check (par. 34, "Once verification is complete, the method at step 306 provides the pursuing police vehicle with confirmation that the target vehicle is the vehicle designated to receive the slowdown command. This can be done as noted above by, for example, a VIN lookup based on license plate number which is then confirmed with call center records. Then, at step 308, the target vehicle is configured to accept the slowdown command"—the call center only provides the slowdown command if verification is successful, therefore, a slowdown command would intrinsically inform the results of verification).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Atoche to incorporate the teachings of McGarry to ensure that the host vehicle or police can only slow down a vehicle if it is authorized to (par. 33).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 14. Atoche further teaches the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle is restricted up to a standstill time (Fig. 5, method ends after selected vehicle is halted).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 14. Atoche further teaches the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle is restricted to at least one of a predetermined period of time or a predetermined driving route (Fig. 5, method ends after selected vehicle is halted).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 21. Atoche further teaches the at least one of the predetermined period of time or the predetermined driving route is specified in the scope of the transfer request of the further road user (par. 43, "The voice and visual commands provide a warning to an operator of the selected vehicle 20 that the vehicle is remotely controlled and will be slowed and eventually halted if the operator does not comply and halt the selected vehicle 20 on their own volition").
Regarding claim 24, Atoche teaches a computing device for a vehicle (Fig. 2, host vehicle suppression control unit 24 with processor 26), which is configured to carry out a method according to claim 14.
Regarding claim 25, Atoche teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising commands (par. 25 and Fig. 2, “memory 28 for storing executable instructions and algorithms”) which, upon the execution thereof by a computing device (processor 26), direct the computing device to carry out a method according claim 14.
Regarding claim 26, Atoche teaches a system for transferring at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of a vehicle to an at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle, comprising:
a computing device according to claim 24 (Fig. 2, host vehicle suppression control unit 24 with processor 26);
and a display device (Fig. 3, display 74), which is configured to notify a driver of the vehicle of a transfer request to transfer the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance to the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle by means of a notification signal output by the computing device (par. 43, “the selected vehicle suppression system 50 outputs at least one from the group consisting of outputting a voice command from a loudspeaker unit 72 and outputting a visual command provided on the display 74 of the selected vehicle 20 in response to the vehicle-to-vehicle warning signal”).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoche in view of Kim (US 11582222 B2).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 14. Atoche further teaches the transfer request signal received from the further road user in the surroundings of the vehicle is checked for plausibility (par. 51, "While not discussed herein, encryption and other information protection techniques are contemplated herein to ensure that only authorized vehicles are capable of selectively suppressing local vehicles")
Atoche fails to explicitly teach the vehicle is checked for plausibility with the aid of first sensor data of a first surroundings sensor of the vehicle before the output of the notification signal. However, this would have been an obvious choice for Atoche, as using sensor data to authenticate vehicles for V2V communication is already well-known in the art.
Kim teaches the vehicle is checked for plausibility with the aid of first sensor data of a first surroundings sensor of the vehicle before the output of the notification signal (column 3 line 37, "Applicant recognizes that supplementary mechanisms may be supplied in addition to PKI authentication for V2V communication. Such supplementary mechanisms may leverage camera sensors that are already prevalent in many autonomous or driving assistance vehicles").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to increase security (column 2 line 59 through column 3 line 8).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 14. Atoche fails to explicitly teach the further road user is identified in first sensor data of a first surroundings sensor of the vehicle and the further road user is characterized as an emergency vehicle, which issues the instruction to the driver of the vehicle and as a result of which the transfer request signal is received. However, Atoche does teach the host vehicle could be a police vehicle (par. 2 and 44 give a police car chase as an example) as well as authenticating vehicles (par. 51, "While not discussed herein, encryption and other information protection techniques are contemplated herein to ensure that only authorized vehicles are capable of selectively suppressing local vehicles"). Atoche fails to explicitly teach using sensor data from a surroundings sensor. However, this would have been an obvious choice for Atoche, as using sensor data to authenticate vehicles for V2V communication is already well-known in the art.
Kim teaches the vehicle is checked for plausibility with the aid of first sensor data of a first surroundings sensor of the vehicle before the output of the notification signal (column 3 line 37, "Applicant recognizes that supplementary mechanisms may be supplied in addition to PKI authentication for V2V communication. Such supplementary mechanisms may leverage camera sensors that are already prevalent in many autonomous or driving assistance vehicles").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry to incorporate the teachings of Kim in order to increase security (column 2 line 59 through column 3 line 8).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoche in view of Oshida (US 20200211401 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry teaches the method according to claim 14. Atoche fails to teach the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle takes place in dependence on a driver input which is detected as a result of the notification signal and describes a consent of the driver to the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle.
However, Oshida teaches the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle takes place in dependence on a driver input which is detected as a result of the notification signal and describes a consent of the driver to the takeover of the at least one of longitudinal or lateral guidance by the at least partially automated driving function of the vehicle (par. 123, "A driver or occupant of a vehicle may accept or decline the suggested lane change using one or more vehicle components"; Fig. 2, 240 enabling follower mode).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Atoche in view of McGarry to incorporate the teachings of Oshida to add the takeover takes place after consent from the driver. Atoche already teaches warning the driver of the takeover (Atoche, Fig. 5, 102 receive vehicle warning signal). Requiring express consent would obviously lead to better comfort for the driver so they not surprised by the sudden takeover.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights