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 .
Claims 1 – 4 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breu et al. (US 2014/0095038).
Regarding Claim 1:
Breu et al. teaches a driver assistance apparatus (paragraph 0002 describes known driver assistance systems, and paragraph 0013 describes automatic braking intervention, which meets the definition of a driver assistance according to the state of the art and the applicant’s definition) for a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission as a transmission (3, 4, 5, paragraph 0004), the driver assistance apparatus comprising: a recognizer (via 18, see also paragraph 0044) configured to recognize information on a traveling environment outside the vehicle; a first processor (via controller 16) configured to execute driver assistance control, based on the information on the traveling environment, the driver assistance control including contact avoidance control against an obstacle (collision prevention of different objects described in paragraph 0046) ; a first determiner (via controller 16) configured to determine whether an engine stall has occurred in an engine of the vehicle (paragraph 0013 describes detecting stalling information); a second determiner (via controller 16) configured to make a request for cancellation of the driver assistance control when the engine stall has occurred (Fig 3 via step 23 and described in paragraphs 0051 – 0058, in which stalling is predicted and the brakes 7 is applied, condition A and B is applied to allow the driver to engage the clutch without braking intervention which implies a cancellation); and a standby unit (via controller 16) configured to temporarily put, when the engine stall has occurred during execution of the contact avoidance control, the request for cancellation of the driver assistance control on standby from occurrence of the engine stall until the vehicle stops (paragraphs 0060 – 0065, step 26 describes the waiting period before applying the brakes and clutch).
Regarding Claim 2:
Breu et al. teaches the second determiner is configured to cancel the request for cancellation when the engine restarts after the occurrence of the engine stall (paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 4:
Breu et al. teaches a driver assistance apparatus (paragraph 0002 describes known driver assistance systems, and paragraph 0013 describes automatic braking intervention, which meets the definition of a driver assistance according to the state of the art and the applicant’s definition) for a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission as a transmission (3, 4, 5, paragraph 0004), the driver assistance apparatus comprising: a recognizer (via 18, see also paragraph 0044) including a sensor (18) and configured to recognize information on a traveling environment outside the vehicle using the sensor; and circuitry configured to execute driver assistance control (Fig 1), based on the information on the traveling environment, the driver assistance control including contact avoidance control against an obstacle (collision prevention of different objects described in paragraph 0046), determine whether an engine stall has occurred in an engine of the vehicle (paragraph 0013 describes detecting stalling information), make a request for cancellation (Fig 3 via step 23 and described in paragraphs 0051 – 0058, in which stalling is predicted and the brakes 7 is applied, condition A and B is applied to allow the driver to engage the clutch without braking intervention which implies a cancellation) of the driver assistance control when the engine stall has occurred, and temporarily put, when the engine stall has occurred during execution of the contact avoidance control, the request for cancellation of the driver assistance control on standby from occurrence of the engine stall until the vehicle stops (paragraphs 0060 – 0065, step 26 describes the waiting period before applying the brakes and clutch).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breu et al. (US 204/0095038).
Regarding Claim 3:
Breu et al. teaches when the request for cancellation of the driver assistance control is made, display information on the cancellation of the driver assistance control on a display (via 20, see also paragraph 0020 which describes displaying “various information” regarding safety functions and collision avoidance).
Breu et al. is silent to a second processor, and wherein the second processor is configured to refrain from displaying the information on the cancellation on the display while the request for cancellation is on standby.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a second processor as claimed, since a second processor is considered a duplicate part in which a singular controller’s functions can be programmed to be partitioned, and therefore is considered a routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice. Furthermore, having the second processor and/or display refrain from displaying certain types of information is considered under a broad but reasonable interpretation of Breu et al.’s display 20 to be achieved by the defined description of “various information” and therefore considered a routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747