DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
Specification
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hambloch (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0124057).
Regarding claim 1, Hambloch discloses a method of operating a steer-by-wire steering system in a vehicle, the steer-by-wire steering system comprising a feedback actuator associated with a steering handle and a steering actuator, the method comprising:
during operation of the vehicle, generating and transmitting a first signal carrying information about at least one operating state of the vehicle to the steering handle by the feedback actuator as feedback to a driver of the vehicle (¶12 discloses many different types of physical feedback signals);
generating a second signal that carries information regarding a responsibility of the driver for the operation of the vehicle, said second signal being indicative of whether the driver is responsible for the operation of the vehicle (¶13 discusses that during autonomy there would be no physical feedback and so any physical feedback would be indicative of a signal that conveys the human is responsible); and
transmitting the second signal to the steering handle by the feedback actuator as feedback to the driver (¶12 discloses different ways that the feedback can manifest and lists different reasons for doing so allowing for an understanding of two different signals).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein the first signal carries information relating to a steering state of the vehicle and/or a road condition (¶12).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein the second signal is indicative of a level of automation of the vehicle (¶13 can be customized to include audio depending on desired signal and so no physical feedback would mean a level of autonomy where the driver is not driving).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein the feedback to the driver imparts a latching feeling to the steering handle with respect to a predefined position (¶12 construed as vibration).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein the feedback to the driver is adjustable by the driver (¶12-13 discloses ways it can change).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein: the feedback to the driver is calculated in a vehicle control unit (¶16), and the feedback to the driver is overlaid onto a feedback signal from the feedback actuator (¶12 discloses the signal to the actuator).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 10, Hambloch discloses wherein the vehicle control unit includes a steering control unit (¶16).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses wherein synthetic mapping of a signature representing the second signal is performed using mathematical derivation (mechanical device option addressed) and/or reading from a mechanical device (¶3 discloses reading the vehicle going over a rough road to provide feedback).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 1, Hambloch discloses an arrangement for operating an automated vehicle, comprising: an analysis unit, wherein the analysis unit is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (ECU).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hambloch (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0124057) in view of Safour (U.S. Pat. No. 11,318,962).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Hambloch does not disclose wherein the second signal is indicative of a change in the level of automation.
Safour, which deals in steering wheel feedback, teaches wherein the second signal is indicative of a change in the level of automation (col. 15, lines 16-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Hambloch with the feedback of Safour because this allows guidance to be given to the driver about the autonomous needs of the vehicle (col. 15, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 4, Safour discloses wherein the second signal is indicative that the level of automation has become greater than or equal to L3 (col. 9, lines 10-23 discloses that these changes are called “transitions” and discusses the changes that occur).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 4, Safour discloses wherein the second signal is indicative that the level of automation becomes less than L3 (col. 15, lines 27-30 discloses going from autonomous to manual).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 7, Safour discloses wherein the latching feeling includes snapping or clicking of the steering handle (col. 9, lines 10-23 discloses how the steering wheel will no longer be controlled to follow the wheels when autonomous is off and vice versa when on, this will be construed as a “latching feel” that can be described as a snap).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that the Hamblock and Safour references do not provided haptic feedback indicating that the driver is responsible for driving the vehicle. But as disclosed in ¶13 of Hamblock there is no feedback when in autonomous mode and so any physical feedback is indicative of the drivers responsibility to drive the vehicle since the vehicle is not in autonomous mode.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the limitation of claim 3 is not addressed because the feedback only deals with the condition of the road. But any physical feedback indicates the drivers responsibility while audio/visual without physical is indicative of autonomous driving.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the latching of claim 7 has not been addressed. The reference gives physical feedback on specific positions that can be construed as latching and those paragraphs have been cited above.
Applicant argues on page 10 that claim 12 was not addressed but does not state how what was stated wasn’t sufficient.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights