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.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 05/15/2026.
Claims 11-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 11-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/02335305) in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0364070.)
Response to Argument
35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the term “control module” is readily understood in the art and that the term itself is structural. The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. The element “control module” contains a generic placeholder (e.g., “module”) followed by qualifying functional language (e.g., “configured to”). The generic placeholder “module” fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Specifically, the word “module” does not provide any indication of structure because it sets forth the same black box recitation of structure for providing the same specified function as if the term ‘means’ had been used." Id. at 1350–51, 115 USPQ2d at 1112. See MPEP 2181(I)(A). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks filed on 05/15/2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0364070).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a user interface module” in at least claim 11.
“a driver monitoring module” in at least claim 11.
“a control module” in at least claim 11.
Structure for the following is provided:
“user interface module” on at least page 3 of the instant specification describing the user interface module to be a head unit or infotainment system installed in the vehicle.
“driver monitoring module” on page 4 of the instant specification describing the driver monitoring module to include at least one sensor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 11-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitation “a control module” in at least claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The recited module is not defined in the claims or specification as having a specific technological structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally, the term “a long-term observation of the driver” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The description “long term” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, “long-term” may vary from seconds to days, rendering the amount of time required for “long-term observation” to be unclear. For purposes of prior art examination, “long-term observation” shall be interpreted by the Examiner to mean continued observation.
Dependent claims 12-17 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims from which they rely on and are thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/02335305) in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0364070).
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses a driver assistance system for a vehicle, comprising:
a user interface module configured to receive a user input to deactivate an emergency stopping function such that the emergency stopping function cannot be triggered by a triggering event to execute an emergency stop while deactivated; (Jung ¶ 169 discloses that a “controller 100 determines whether another emergency event occurs, in step S634,” such that when the vehicle recognizes an emergent situation in the autonomous driving mode, a user may select an “emergent situation button,” wherein “the emergent situation button may include the manual driving mode button provided for selecting so as to quickly switch to the manual driving mode from the autonomous driving mode,” wherein the autonomous driving mode includes an emergency stop, see ¶ 270. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that switching to manual driving would deactivate the autonomous driving mode thereby deactivating the emergency stopping function where it cannot be triggered by a triggering event. The Examiner further notes that the claim appears to include an intended use (e.g., “such that”); therefore, this limitation is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
a driver monitoring module configured to determine a driver status; and (Jung ¶ 133 discloses “The controller 100 senses a situation (e.g., fatigue) of a driver of the vehicle 10, in step S512. For example, the sensor 203 of the vehicle 10 may sense driver fatigue based on the activity pattern of a driver (e.g., eye blinking, head shaking).”)
a control module ... (Jung in at least ¶ 135 “controller 100”)
Jung does not expressly disclose:
a control module configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event.
However, Oba discloses:
a control module configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event. (Oba ¶ 56 discloses a “determination processing unit 26 makes a threshold value determination of these parameters, thus determining whether the driver has a sufficient level of driving ability for recovering back to the manual driving, and can permit switching to the automatic driving mode,” such that the “step of switching the mode includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the autonomous driving mode can be started,” see ¶ 356, and “in a case where the driver is not awakened from the autonomous steering of the automobile, the vehicle can make an emergency evacuation [i.e., reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event],” see ¶ 131. Also see ¶ 212.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control module of Jung with being configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event, as disclosed by Oba, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable safer automatic driving (Oba ¶ 11) and to allow dedicated automatic driving cruising upon determining whether the driver has the driving recovery ability or not (Oba ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein the user interface module is configured:
to output a request to reactivate the emergency stopping function if the driver status corresponds to the predetermined status; and (Jung ¶ 135 discloses “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514.”)
to reactivate the emergency stopping function if a user input to reactivate the emergency stopping function is received as a response to the request. (Jung ¶ 89 discloses “In response to the received switch request, the controller 100 may determine the intention of a driver who drives the vehicle 10 according to the driving state of the vehicle 10, and control the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode which is established according to the determined intention of a driver,” wherein the switch request is “according to the user manipulation of selecting a manual switching user interface (e.g., manual switching button) or automatic switching user interface (e.g., automatic switching button) provided on the vehicle 10,” see ¶ 61.)
Regarding claim 13, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the control module is configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function automatically if the driver status corresponds to the predetermined status. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 [i.e., automatically reactivated] to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136.)
Regarding claim 14, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the driver monitoring module is configured to determine a measure of the driver status, and (Jung ¶ 78 discloses sensor 203, which may be implemented as part of controller 100, see ¶ 80, of the vehicle which senses “a situation of a driver” which includes “fatigue of a driver or driving posture of a driver. Specifically, driver fatigue may be determined by tracking the driver′ gaze and the driver's facial movement.”)
wherein the control module is configured to carry out the reactivation of the emergency stopping function based on the measure of the driver status. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136.)
Regarding claim 15, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 14, wherein the control module is configured:
to output the request to reactivate the emergency stopping function if the measure of the driver status corresponds to a first measure, in particular wherein the first measure is a first fatigue status of the driver; and (Jung Fig. 5B depicts determining a first fatigue status of the driver in step S512, such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value [i.e., a first measure], the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135, and controlling the vehicle to operate in autonomous driving mode [i.e., output the request to reactivate the emergency stopping function] in step S514)
to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function automatically if the measure of the driver status corresponds to a second measure which is higher than the first measure, in particular wherein the second measure is a second fatigue status of the driver. (Jung ¶ 48 discloses that “the controller may receive a switch request according to an event occurring based on a state of driver (e.g., at least one of the driver's hand position, foot position, body position, and face position), such that “When the fatigue of a driver is greater than or equal to the certain value, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 [i.e., automatically reactivated] to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S514,” see ¶ 135. “For example, when it is determined that the fatigue of a driver is too high, the controller 100 may control the vehicle 10 to designate the destination 511 to be a rest area [i.e., emergency stopping function],” where the vehicle can be parked, see ¶¶ 134 and 136. Jung ¶ 138 discloses that the vehicle 10 “continues [i.e., a second measure and a corresponding second fatigue status] to sense the state of the driver (e.g., driver fatigue).” See Fig. 10. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as the controller continues to (i.e., repeatedly) sense the state of the driver, the controller would control the vehicle to operate in the autonomous driving mode according to the fatigue of the driver being greater than a second certain value.)
Regarding claim 16, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein:
the driver monitoring module is configured for a long-term observation of the driver; and (Jung Fig. 5B depicts that the controller continues to sense [i.e., long term observation] the state of the driver in at least step S512 to S513 while the fatigue of the driver is not equal to or greater than a certain value, see corresponding ¶ 137.)
the control module is configured to carry out the reactivation of the emergency stopping function based on the long-term observation of the driver. (Jung ¶ 200 discloses “While operating in the manual driving mode, the controller 100 senses the driving situation of the vehicle 10, in step S1007” including “at least one of the state of driver,” and “When a request to switch to the autonomous driving mode is received, the controller 100 controls the vehicle 10 to operate in the autonomous driving mode, in step S1010, which is established according to the driver's intention determined in step S1008.”)
Regarding claim 17, Jung in view of Oba discloses the driver assistance system of claim 11, wherein the control module is configured:
to reactivate the emergency stopping function for a current driving cycle and to deactivate it again for a driving cycle following the current driving cycle; or to reactivate the emergency stopping function permanently for this driver. (Jung Fig. 10 depicts that the process may end after controlling the vehicle to operate in the autonomous driving mode in step S1010, the autonomous driving mode thereby being reactivated “permanently” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein the autonomous driving mode includes driving the vehicle 10 to a rest area where the vehicle can be parked [i.e., emergency stop function], see at least ¶ 136.)
Regarding claim 18, Jung in view of Oba discloses the motor vehicle comprising:
the driver assistance system of claim 11. (Jung in at least Fig. 2B)
Regarding claim 19, Jung discloses the driver assistance method for a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving a user input to deactivate an emergency stopping function such that the emergency stopping function cannot be triggered by a triggering event to execute an emergency stop while deactivated; (Jung ¶ 169 discloses that a “controller 100 determines whether another emergency event occurs, in step S634,” such that when the vehicle recognizes an emergent situation in the autonomous driving mode, a user may select an “emergent situation button,” wherein “the emergent situation button may include the manual driving mode button provided for selecting so as to quickly switch to the manual driving mode from the autonomous driving mode,” wherein the autonomous driving mode includes an emergency stop, see ¶ 270. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that switching to manual driving would deactivate the autonomous driving mode thereby deactivating the emergency stopping function where it cannot be triggered by a triggering event. The Examiner further notes that the claim appears to include an intended use (e.g., “such that”); therefore, this limitation is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.)
determining a driver status; and (Jung ¶ 78 discloses sensor 203, which may be implemented as part of controller 100, see ¶ 80, of the vehicle which senses “a situation of a driver” which includes “fatigue of a driver or driving posture of a driver. Specifically, driver fatigue may be determined by tracking the driver′ gaze and the driver's facial movement.”)
Jung does not expressly disclose:
reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event.
However, Oba discloses:
reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event. (Oba ¶ 56 discloses a “determination processing unit 26 makes a threshold value determination of these parameters, thus determining whether the driver has a sufficient level of driving ability for recovering back to the manual driving, and can permit switching to the automatic driving mode,” such that the “step of switching the mode includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the autonomous driving mode can be started,” see ¶ 356, and “in a case where the driver is not awakened from the autonomous steering of the automobile, the vehicle can make an emergency evacuation [i.e., reactivating the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event],” see ¶ 131. Also see ¶ 212.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the control module of Jung with being configured to reactivate the deactivated emergency stopping function in response to the driver status corresponding to a predetermined status distinct from the triggering event, as disclosed by Oba, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable safer automatic driving (Oba ¶ 11) and to allow dedicated automatic driving cruising upon determining whether the driver has the driving recovery ability or not (Oba ¶ 10), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 20, Jung in view of Oba discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing software program executable by one or more processors to carry out the driver assistance method of claim 19. (Jung in at least ¶¶ 297-298)
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 STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights