DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
2. Claims 11-30 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 11 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an emergency situation” in line 3 should be “the emergency situation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12, 15-17, 21 and 24-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an emergency situation” should be “the emergency situation”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6. 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: “driver assistance system configured to – corresponding to element 1 in Fig. 1” in claim 20.
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
7. 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.
8. Claims 11-30 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the presence of an emergency situation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the surroundings of the vehicle" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " the behavior of other vehicles in the surroundings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the presence of an emergency situation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the surroundings of the vehicle" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation " the behavior of other vehicles in the surroundings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-18 and 29-30 depend on claim 11, claims 21-27 depend on claim 20. Claims 12-18, 21-27 and 29-30 are also rejected because they depend on base claim that is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 11, 12, 14, 18-21, 23, 27-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuchs et al. (Fuchs; US 2021/0031800).
For claim 11, Fuchs discloses a method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
detecting the presence of an emergency situation of the vehicle [E.g. 0085: If the vehicle follows an “emergency trajectory”, then it is in a technical (e.g. tire blowout) or situation-related emergency (e.g. child runs onto the road), i.e. it will not be able to adhere to normal traffic rules (e.g. stopping on a highway) or represents a potential hazard to other vehicles (due to heavy braking/steering), 0087: If a trajectory is marked with the category “Emergency Vehicle”, the vehicle on this trajectory has special priority as it is on duty (for the vehicle as such, the information is already included in the CAM (Cooperative Awareness Message)]; and after the presence of an emergency situation has been detected [E.g. 0085, 0087, 0069-0070]:
a) determining a danger zone [Fig. 2: element 212] in the form of at least one future trajectory or a trajectory swarm of possible future trajectories of the vehicle [E.g. 0027: a trajectory set combines a group of possible trajectories, which intersect at a common point or start from a common point. The common point may be a current position of the vehicle at the current time. At the common point, the vehicle travels with identical speed and identical direction for all trajectories of a trajectory set. The trajectories of the trajectory set are all at least slightly different. At least one driving maneuver is different for all trajectories of the trajectory set. Different trajectories of the trajectory set may cross each other. Here, a future position may be reached at the same future point in time via different trajectories, 0057: possibility for cooperative maneuver coordination is based on the idea of transferring two trajectories. Therein, a planned trajectory, which describes the currently planned maneuver, and a desired trajectory, which describes a maneuver the vehicle would like to perform, e.g. because it is more efficient than the currently planned one, are transmitted. The planned trajectory differs from the desired trajectory in that planned trajectories of vehicles are always collision-free, whereas a desired trajectory always has a collision with a planned trajectory. If a vehicle now receives as a fellow wish a desired trajectory from another vehicle that collides with its planned trajectory (ego plan), it checks by means of a global cost criterion whether it may realize an alternative maneuver to make the fellow wish possible and acknowledges the cooperation by changing the ego plan so that there is no longer any collision with the fellow wish, 0069: In vehicle 100, it is recognized that the vehicle 100 requires cooperation because the reference trajectory 110 would lead to a collision 212 with the fellow reference trajectory 206, and the fellow vehicle 104 has right of way. Therefore, the remaining trajectories 108 of the trajectory set 106 are examined for collisions 212. It is further recognized that the vehicle 100 cannot change from the acceleration lane to the road without a collision 212 with the current fellow reference trajectory 206, because the right-hand lane of the road is occupied by the fellow vehicle 104, 0070: On the only collision-free trajectory 108, the vehicle 100 would be braked on the acceleration lane];
b1) communicating information describing the danger zone to other vehicles [E.g. 0073: The new reference trajectory 110 with the reference effort value 114 and the cooperation trajectory 108 with its associated effort value 112 are transmitted to the fellow vehicle 104 in a data packet 120 as shown in FIG. 1., 0074: In the fellow vehicle 104, the fellow reference trajectory 206 is now also examined for collisions 212. It is recognized that the vehicle 100 requiring cooperation has chosen its reference trajectory 110 collision-free and requests the cooperation trajectory 300 as a possible alternative.] and/or infrastructure apparatuses in the surroundings of the vehicle by way of a communication apparatus; and/or
b2) outputting a warning signal to warn other roads users impacted by the danger zone.
For claim 12, Fuchs discloses wherein, in b1), a message is additionally communicated to other vehicles and/or infrastructure apparatuses in the surroundings of the vehicle by way of the communication apparatus, which message comprises information that the vehicle is in an emergency situation [E.g. 0085, 0087, 0110].
For claim 14, Fuchs discloses wherein the future trajectories of the trajectory swarm are selected such that a probability of occurrence assigned in each case to the future trajectories is equal to or greater than a specified threshold value or such that a cost value assigned in each case to the future trajectories is less than a specified threshold value [E.g. 0057, 0071-0072, 0082-0083].
For claim 18, Fuchs discloses wherein a behavior of other road users in surroundings of the vehicle is taken into account when determining the danger zone [E.g. 0028, 0069-0070].
For claim 19, Fuchs discloses wherein, in order to take account of the behavior of other vehicles in the surroundings, current and/or future trajectories of the other vehicles in the surroundings are received and/or queried [E.g. 0028, 0069-0070].
For claim 20, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 11.
For claim 21, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 12.
For claim 23, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 14.
For claim 27, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 18.
For claim 28, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 19.
For claim 30, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claims 13, 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Offenhaeuser et al. (Offenhaeuser; US 2018/0218608).
For claim 13, Fuchs fails to expressly disclose wherein, after the presence of the emergency situation has been detected, it is checked whether the vehicle can still be extricated from the detected emergency situation, wherein the measures b1) and/or b2) are only executed if this is not the case.
However, as shown by Offenhaeuser, it was well known in the art of vehicle communication to include wherein, after presence of an emergency situation has been detected, it is checked whether the vehicle can still be extricated from the detected emergency situation, wherein the measures b1) and/or b2) are only executed if this is not the case [E.g. 0021, 0019, 0014-0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle communication before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchs with the teaching of Offenhaeuser in order to avoid unnecessary communication that can be overwhelming to others and thereby improve the overall system, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 22, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 13.
For claim 29, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 13.
15. Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Steen et al. (Steen; DE 102018203376; provided in the IDS).
For claim 15, Fuchs fails to expressly disclose wherein a driving behavior is monitored for the detection of an emergency situation.
However, as shown by Steen, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include wherein a driving behavior is monitored for the detection of an emergency situation [E.g. 0001, 0011-0012].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchs with the teaching of Steen in order to take into consideration the driving behavior to improve compliance and accountability, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
For claim 24, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 15.
16. Claims 16-17 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Wilhelm et al. (Wilhelm; US 2016/0001775).
For claim 16, Fuchs fails to expressly disclose wherein driving dynamics of the vehicle are monitored for the detection of an emergency situation.
However, as shown by Wilhelm, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include wherein driving dynamics of the vehicle are monitored for the detection of an emergency situation [E.g. 0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchs with the teaching of Wilhelm because monitoring driving dynamics for emergency detection not only helps prevent accidents in real time but also improves response speed, supports driver training, and provides valuable data for safety improvements.
For claim 17, Fuchs fails to expressly disclose wherein a vehicle-driving entity is monitored for the detection of an emergency situation.
However, as shown by Wilhelm, it was well known in the art of vehicles to include wherein a vehicle-driving entity is monitored for the detection of an emergency situation [E.g. 0014-0017, 0037-0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicles before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fuchs with the teaching of Wilhelm because monitoring a vehicle-driving entity for emergency situations improves safety, ensures legal compliance, supports timely emergency response, and integrates seamlessly with modern driver assistance and automation systems.
For claim 25, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 16.
For claim 26, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 17.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights