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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026, regarding the 112(f) interpretations; applicant’s amendments to the interface device overcomes the 112(f) interpretation for the “interface device” however each of the recited submodules is interpreted under 112(f) as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026, regarding claim 1 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, while the claims are read in light of the specification, limitations are not imparted from the specification absent explicit claim language requiring such. Claims are given their plain meaning for the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Point 1,
Applicant’s arguments as to the distinguishing features (for claims 1 and 9) are not persuasive as neither claims 1 nor 9 recites language concerning the “default” exclusion, instead they recite a “first” and “second” classification.
As to point 2, when defining these classifications in the claims open ended language (“comprising”) and (“at least”) is used such that the claims 1/9 are not considered to require that all deceleration inputs are immediately incorporated and all acceleration inputs are not immediately incorporated. The claims only require that a piece of prior art teach “at least” one accelerator input (First classification) which is not immediately incorporated and “at least” one braking input (second classification) which is immediately incorporated. This is not the same as claiming that all acceleration inputs are the first classification and all deceleration inputs are the second classification.
Regarding the teachings of ellis (argument pages 13-14 section B) this argued differenced is not required by the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 1 and 9 do not recite that accelerator inputs are/should be “wholly excluded”; they recite that the (first classification) is “to be not used for direct vehicle control”, as such the blending (of an unsafe accelerator input) of Ellis reads on this in that the subsequent control from the accelerator is not “directly” incorporated instead it is adjusted (blended) with the planned autonomous profile/value and thus while it is incorporated into the control of the vehicle it is not “directly” incorporate.
The interpretation of Ellis where the favored (not blended) incorporation for commands within the safety bounds satisfies “direct” incorporation, whereas the blended (for commands outside the safety bounds) satisfies the “not used for direct” in that the inputs is not directly incorporated instead it is adjusted (Blended). For “immediate” under the plain meaning/BRI given that the control commands of Ellis is to prevent collision/dangerous behavior during driving the vehicle the speed at which the controls are incorporated and/or blended happens in realtime and thus satisfy “immediate” incorporation.
Ellis as previously cited teaches such inputs. [0019] teaches that for a given input (accelerator and/or brake inputs as known from [0017]-[0018], i.e. the first and second classifications) if a input falls within the safety bounds it is directly incorporated, and if it falls outside then it is not directly incorporated, instead it is adjusted (Blended) and then incorporated. Put anotherway from [0017]-[0019] at least four input-response are taught: (1) accelerator input within safety bounds results in direct incorporation, (2) accelerator outside safety bounds results not direct incorporation (instead blends), (3) brake pedal within safety bounds results direct incorporation, and (4) brake pedal outside safety bounds results in blended (not direct) incorporation.
(2) would be an example of a first classification (accelerator) which is not directly incorporated and (3) would be an example of a second classification which is incorporated directly.
([0019] teaches comparing “intent” as within or out of bounds, (safe or unsafe), [0018] teaches “intent” = “acceleration commands”, [0017] teaches that “acceleration commands” = accelerator and decelerator pedal inputs, thus as a read as whole [0017]-[0019] teaches comparing accelerator and decelerator inputs to safety bounds and correspondingly directly incorporating or blending (not directly incorporating) a given input depending on if it falls within the bounds or not (i.e. the four input-responses explained above)
Regarding the teachings of Ravuri (section C page 14-15), similar to Ellis, claims 1/9 do not recite the “default” operation/limitations which would require such. Claims 1/9 do not recite “wholly excluded” accelerator inputs, the “first classification” is openly defined “comprising” “at least” an accelerator input which “is not to be directly” incorporated, thus the unintentional accelerator pedal operation detection of Ravuri reads on this feature in that it teaches an accelerator (first classification) input which “is not to be directly” incorporated. While there may be some accelerator inputs in the context of Ravuri which are directly incorporated the claim language of 1/9 does not require that all accelerator inputs are excluded for direct incorporation, instead they only require a single (an) accelerator input which is not directly incorporated. claims 1/9 require only that one (“at least a”) accelerator input which is “not to be directly incorporated”.
Regarding the “default” (i.e. claim 16) operation, Ravuri in [0020] teaches there are embodiments wherein the “student” mode is on by default in that if the vehicle detects a key fob (associated with a student driver) when activated the student mode is activated (i.e. is the “default”) operation. This automatic enabling of the student mode when starting the vehicle would read on the “by default” limitation/operation of claim 16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026 was filed before the first action on the merits of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“surrounding environment recognition module”, placeholder term “module”, functionally claimed “configured to” , with no limitations as to the structure of this module recited in the claim; from [0056] understood to be environmental sensors such as cameras, lidars, radar, ultrasonic sensors, etc
“driver behavior detection module”, placeholder term “module”, functionally claimed “configured to” , with no limitations as to the structure of this module recited in the claim, from [0057] understood to be interior controls/inputs such AC control buttons, accelerator pedal, decelerator pedal, turn signals, etc; however [0059] then recites an conflicting definition for the “driver behavior detection module” which excludes control inputs (turn signal, pedal inputs, steering) etc, as such when read in light of the specification what parameters/inputs are or aren’t part of the driver behavior detection module and its corresponding inputs is unclear.
“driving information recognition module”, placeholder term “module”, functionally claimed “configured to” , with no limitations as to the structure of this module recited in the claim. From [0058] understood to be vehicle sensors such as a speed sensor, gps, steering wheel sensor, etc.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the amended limitations concerning the “default” configuration of the control system is new matter. The applicant’s specification was not found to explicitly recite the “default” configuration of the control system, nor in the amendments did the applicant point towards what section(s) of the specification provide grounds for such an amendment. Further when reviewing the specification as a whole the functioning of the accelerator (i.e. if its function/input is directly reflected or not by the vehicle) is understood to be in response to a (“acceleration control permission button 150”) which selects if the override mode is active or not. As such if the override of the accelerator pedal input is not considered to be “default” but instead is understood to be mode dependent (if the permission button activated or not); the applicant’s claims do not recite or indicate what mode the vehicle is in.
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 1-3, 5-8 and 16-20 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.
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 16 they were amended to recite a “driver behavior detection module configured..” which are interpreted under 112(f). However when the specification is consulted as to their function [0057] and [0059] provide conflicting definitions/guidance as to what parameters are included/detected by this module. [0057] would suggest any driver/operator input (behavior) would be included under this; however [0059] then goes on to delineate between driver behavior inputs and driver control input, and that the driver behavior module does not detect/correspond to control inputs (such as accelerator, brake pedal, turn signal, gear change inputs, etc) as such the bounds of protection are unclear in that depending on which definition [0057]/[0059] what detected inputs/behavior would constitute a “driver behavior” shifts.
For judging these claims on their merits the broader [0057] definition which includes control inputs such as accelerator, brake, turn signal, etc inputs will be used.
Their various dependent claims inherit this 112(b) rejection.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites “a control input for a deceleration input” is incorporated into vehicle control; however claim 1 which claim 2 depends on already recites a driver’s control input which is a deceleration input which belongs to a/the second classification; as such it is unclear if the control input of claim 2 is the same or a different deceleration input/second classification as recited in claim 1.
Claims 4 is 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.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites that it has been amended to recite that the “driver behavior detection information” includes various driver control inputs (accelerator, decelerator, turn signal, gear, etc) this renders the scope of protection unclear in that these inputs would all be considered “driver control inputs” and when read in light of the applicant’s specification [0059] would suggest that driver control inputs (accelerator, decelerator, etc) are not detected by the driver behavior detection module.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 2, its limitation is now recited in the independent claims as such claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1 in that a driver control input belonging to a second classification comprises a deceleration input that is incorporated into the vehicle control. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200218272 A1, “DRIVER-CENTRIC MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROLLER”, Ellis et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Ellis et al teaches “A vehicle control system that limits a driver’s driving behavior, the vehicle control system comprising: an input interface device comprising a driver control input module configured to a driving control input from the driver, and further comprising at least one of a surrounding environment recognition module configured to generate surrounding environment information of a vehicle, a driver behavior detection module configured to detect a behavior of a driver, and a driving information recognition module configured to recognize a driving state of the vehicle;”( [0015] In the autonomous intervention mode, a human operates the vehicle and a vehicle control system monitors the human's commands as well as the surrounding environment.” + [0017] accelerator/decelerator inputs teaches driver control input and driver behavior detection module, Here monitoring of the commands inherently teaches a device to receive those commands + [0022] teaches surrounding environment sensors/module, + [0006] from the velocity profile generation and subsequent control and following of this profile implicitly a detection of the vehicle speed/velocity is needed in order to follow this profile thus teaching a driving information recognition module );” memory in which a program that recognizes the driver’s control input and that determines whether to incorporate results of the recognition into vehicle control has been stored; and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor controls the driver’s control input, which belongs to first classification, to be not used for direct vehicle control and controls the driver’s control input, which belongs to second classification, to be immediately incorporated into the vehicle control based on the results of the recognition. wherein the driver's control input belonging to the first classification comprises at least an acceleration input that is not directly reflected in the vehicle control, and the driver's control input belonging to the second classification comprises at least a deceleration input that is directly incorporated into the vehicle control.”([0017]-[0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here teaches that if the driver’s intent (received driver input/command) falls outside the safety bounds, i.e. belongs to a first classification, it is adjusted to fall within the bounds, if it is not outside the safety bounds (i.e. belongs to the second classification) it is implemented immediately into the vehicle control Ellis. [0019] teaches that for a given input (accelerator and/or brake inputs as known from [0017]-[0018], i.e. the first and second classifications) if a input falls within the safety bounds it is directly incorporated, and if it falls outside then it is not directly incorporated, instead it is adjusted (Blended) and then incorporated. Put anotherway from [0017]-[0019] at least four input-response are taught: (1) accelerator input within safety bounds results in direct incorporation, (2) accelerator outside safety bounds results not direct incorporation (instead blends), (3) brake pedal within safety bounds results direct incorporation, and (4) brake pedal outside safety bounds results in blended (not direct) incorporation.
(2) would be an example of a first classification (accelerator) which is not directly incorporated and (3) would be an example of a second classification which is incorporated directly.
([0019] teaches comparing “intent” as within or out of bounds, (safe or unsafe), [0018] teaches “intent” = “acceleration commands”, [0017] teaches that “acceleration commands” = accelerator and decelerator pedal inputs, thus as a read as whole [0017]-[0019] teaches comparing accelerator and decelerator inputs to safety bounds and correspondingly directly incorporating or blending (not directly incorporating) a given input depending on if it falls within the bounds or not (i.e. the four input-responses explained above)
Regarding Claim 2, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor incorporates a control input for a deceleration input, which belongs to the second classification, into the vehicle control.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration.” Here teaches that a deceleration driver intent which falls within the safety bounds (belongs to second classification) is favored (implemented into the vehicle control))
Regarding Claim 3, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor executes an autonomous driving function with respect to a control function related to the driver’s control input, which belongs to the first classification, and controls manual driving to be performed with respect to the driver’s control input, which belongs to the second classification.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here teaches that when a driver’s intent falls within the safety bounds (belongs to second classification) it is implemented (i.e. vehicle is manually controlled) whereas when it falls outside the safety bounds (belongs to the first classification) it is adjusted to fall within the bounds/the planned (autonomous) trajectory is favored (i.e. the vehicle performs autonomous control))
Regarding Claim 7, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor performs driving control by mixing the driver’s control input and a control calculation value for autonomous driving.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here [0019] teaches blending (mixing) of driver’s intent (driver inputted controls) with a planned (control calculation value) from the autonomous driving controller)
Regarding Claim 8, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor incorporates the driver’s control input, which belongs to the first classification, into the vehicle control when the input interface device receives an input value for a manual driving command.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here teaches adjusting of a driver’s intent that is outside the safety range (belongs to the first value) (i.e. the manual command is still implemented, it is just first adjusted to a safe value))
Regarding Claim 9, Ellis teaches “A vehicle control method being performed by a vehicle control system that limits a driver’s driving behavior and comprising steps of: (a) receiving and classifying a driver’s control input;and (b) incorporating the driver’s control input into manual driving or performing autonomous driving by disregarding the driver’s control input based on results of the classification in the step (a).”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here teaches receiving a driver’s control input (driver intent) determining if it falls within the safety boundaries (belongs to a first or second classification) if it falls within the boundaries (i.e. is part of the second classification) it is implemented, if it doesn’t fall within the boundaries (belongs to the first classification) it is adjusted to be within the safe boundaries (i.e. vehicle “disregards” the instruction and autonomously drives, that this blending falls within the scope of “disregard” is taken to alignment with claim 15’s which clearly claims that step be (“disregarding”) includes mixing of the received command and control calculation (autonomously determined/predicted command) values).)” wherein in the step (b), a driver's control input for an acceleration operation belonging to first classification is not directly reflected in vehicle control and the vehicle control system autonomously controls acceleration of the vehicle,”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries;” Here when the drivers input/acceleration is above the maximum acceleration the vehicle overrides and lowers/autonomously implements an acceleration within the safety bounds. (i.e. the drivers acceleration input is not “directly” reflected instead it is adjusted);” and a driver's control input belonging to second classification is immediately incorporated into the vehicle control, wherein the driver's control input belonging to the second classification comprises at least a deceleration input that is directly incorporated into the vehicle control without change.”( [0020] As an example, when a driver intends to stop the vehicle, the driver releases the accelerator and provides input via the brake. The vehicle control system may not intervene if the deceleration falls within the safety boundary. In one example, the brake input may be less than a threshold, causing the deceleration rate to be less than a maximum deceleration” Here teaches that when the driver decelerates, and if it is within the safe deceleration bounds, the input is directly incorporated/reflected in the vehicle control without any change.)
Regarding Claim 10, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 9, wherein the step (a) comprises additionally collecting driving information and surrounding environment information in addition to the driver’s control input.”( [0021] teaches accounting for rearward vehicles (surrounding environment information) in determining if a command falls within the safety boundaries + [0030]-[0031] teaches that safe navigation is based on both surrounding information (environment information) and the current vehicle parameters (Driving information) such as speed (initial velocity))
Regarding Claim 13, Ellis teaches “wherein the step (b) comprises disregarding the driver’s control input for an acceleration input and incorporating the driver’s control input for a deceleration input into driving.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.” Here teaches that if a command (e.g. deceleration input) is within the safety bounds it is incorporated into driving, whereas if a command is outside the safety bounds is it “disregarded” and modified to fit within the bounds; “disregard” is considered to include the mixing of a driver and of a control calculation value (autonomous vehicle controller commanded value/expected value) in view of claim 15;)
Regarding Claim 15, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 9, wherein the step (b) comprises performing driving control by mixing the driver’s control input and a control calculation value for autonomous driving.”( [0019] In one configuration, the vehicle control system favor's the driver's intent so long as the intent is within safety boundaries set by the planner. The safety boundaries may include a maximum velocity, a minimum velocity, a maximum acceleration, and a maximum deceleration. If the driver's intent falls outside one of the safety boundaries, the vehicle control system favors the planned trajectory over the driver's intent. That is, the vehicle control system may blend the driver's intent with the planned trajectory to adjust to the driver's intent to fall within the safety boundaries.”Here teaches blending of a driver’s command and the planned (control calculation value) command)
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20240001950 A1, “VEHICULAR DRIVING ASSIST SYSTEM WITH STUDENT DRIVER MODE”, Ravuri.
Regarding Claim 1, Ravuri teaches “A vehicle control system that limits a driver’s driving behavior, the vehicle control system comprising: an input interface device comprising a driver control input module configured to receive a driver’s control input from the driver,”( [0021]”… For example, the system may detect unintentional acceleration (e.g., when the driver mistakenly presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal)”.);”and further comprising at least one of a surrounding environment recognition module configured to generate surrounding environment information of a vehicle,”([0021]”… The system may determine that the acceleration is unintentional based on context related to, for example, the vehicle's location (e.g., within a parking lot), objects surrounding the vehicle (e.g., a parking space),”);” a driver behavior detection module configured to detect a behavior of a driver, and a driving information recognition module configured to recognize a driving state of the vehicle;”([0021]” the driver's control of the vehicle prior to the acceleration, an amount of the acceleration, etc. In one example, the system determines that the acceleration is unintentional based at least in part on timing and sequencing of actuations of the acceleration pedal and/or the brake pedal.”);”; memory in which a program that recognizes the driver’s control input and that determines whether to incorporate results of the recognition into vehicle control has been stored; and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the processor controls the driver’s control input, which belongs to first classification, to be not incorporated into the vehicle control without any change and controls the driver’s control input,”( [0017] The system, while in student mode, may detect the unintended acceleration. When an unintended acceleration is detected, the system may automatically reduce or halt the acceleration entirely. In some scenarios (e.g., when objects are detected in front of or near the vehicle or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle), the system may slow the vehicle by applying the brake. The student mode may limit vehicle acceleration/velocity (e.g., to a threshold amount of acceleration/velocity) even for intended acceleration/velocity. The system may not allow or may limit rapid changes in acceleration even when the requested acceleration is below the maximum acceleration allowed by the student mode. Whenever the student mode limits control of the vehicle (e.g., by reducing acceleration or applying the brake), the system may provide a visual, audible, and/or haptic alert or warning to the driver of the vehicle (i.e., notifying the driver that control was limited by the student mode).” Here teaches that when a sudden acceleration input is detected and classified as unintentional is it limited or completely disregarded;);” which belongs to second classification, to be immediately incorporated into the vehicle control based on the results of the recognition.”( “…[0015] The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration.” Here teaches that “some control” may be limit, therefore there are other controls not limited under student mode, such control (belong to a second classification) are implemented immediately))
Regarding Claim 2, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor incorporates a control input for a deceleration input, which belongs to the second classification, into the vehicle control.”( [0016] Referring now to FIG. 2, a student driver driving a vehicle enters a parking lot (at any speed) and approaches a parking space with the intent to slow and enter the parking space. As shown in FIG. 3, the student driver, instead of pressing the brake pedal in an attempt to slow the vehicle, presses the acceleration pedal with significant force. For example, the student driver becomes nervous about their speed and attempts to press the brake pedal with force to quickly stop the vehicle, but unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead. In this scenario, a sudden acceleration may cause a collision with another vehicle, pedestrians, and/or a building (see FIG. 4).
[0017] The system, while in student mode, may detect the unintended acceleration. When an unintended acceleration is detected, the system may automatically reduce or halt the acceleration entirely.
” Here ravuri teaches an implementation where instead of braking the accelerator is unintentionally pressed, and thus the acceleration is limited, while not explicitly teaching what would happen if the brake pedal were pressed from the overall context (“student mode”) it is implicit that a braking command/input would be proper in this scenario (“intends to slow”) and thus would be implemented to decelerate the vehicle into the parking space.)
Regarding Claim 3, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor executes an autonomous driving function with respect to a control function related to the driver’s control input, which belongs to the first classification, and controls manual driving to be performed with respect to the driver’s control input, which belongs to the second classification”( [0015] The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration. That is, when a student driver or new driver unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal, the vehicle, while in student driving mode, may be limited to a maximum acceleration/throttle/velocity that is lower than the vehicle's maximum acceleration. As another example, the system may limit acceleration/velocity when objects are detected in front (or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle) of the vehicle (e.g., via the sensing system 12 of FIG. 1) such as another vehicle, pedestrians, a building, etc.” Here Ravuri teaches that “some” (first classification) controls are limited whereas (from implicitly that “some” (i.e. not “all”)) others functions (second classification) are not limited)
Regarding Claim 8, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the processor incorporates the driver’s control input, which belongs to the first classification, into the vehicle control when the input interface device receives an input value for a manual driving command.”( [0020] The student mode may be enabled manually by an occupant of the vehicle. For example, the student mode may be enabled in response to actuation of a user input or human machine interface (HMI) at a console, a gear selector, or a display of the vehicle. The student mode may be enabled via a user input (e.g., voice input, interaction with a user device in communication with the vehicle such as a mobile phone, touch screen, etc.).” Here teaches that the student mode (and its limiting) is enabled (or disabled) via the interface thus when disabled the “unintended acceleration”) (First classification) would be implemented into vehicle control)
Regarding Claim 9, Ravuri teaches “A vehicle control method being performed by a vehicle control system that limits a driver’s driving behavior and comprising steps of: (a) receiving and classifying a driver’s control input; and (b) incorporating the driver’s control input into manual driving or performing autonomous driving by disregarding the driver’s control input based on results of the classification in the step (a).”( [0017] The system, while in student mode, may detect the unintended acceleration. When an unintended acceleration is detected, the system may automatically reduce or halt the acceleration entirely. In some scenarios (e.g., when objects are detected in front of or near the vehicle or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle), the system may slow the vehicle by applying the brake. The student mode may limit vehicle acceleration/velocity (e.g., to a threshold amount of acceleration/velocity) even for intended acceleration/velocity. The system may not allow or may limit rapid changes in acceleration even when the requested acceleration is below the maximum acceleration allowed by the student mode. Whenever the student mode limits control of the vehicle (e.g., by reducing acceleration or applying the brake), the system may provide a visual, audible, and/or haptic alert or warning to the driver of the vehicle (i.e., notifying the driver that control was limited by the student mode).” Here teaches that when a sudden acceleration input is detected and classified (First classification) as unintentional is it limited or completely disregarded whereas other inputs may be implemented from “some control” limits in [0015] );” and a driver's control input belonging to second classification is immediately incorporated into the vehicle control, wherein the driver's control input belonging to the second classification comprises at least a deceleration input that is directly incorporated into the vehicle control without change.”( [0015] “The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration. That is, when a student driver or new driver unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal, the vehicle, while in student driving mode, may be limited to a maximum acceleration/throttle/velocity that is lower than the vehicle's maximum acceleration.” Here teaches that the student mode is to override unintentional acceleration/accelerator pedal inputs; and instead brakes thus implicitly/logically this means that braking commands/pedal inputs are not disregarded (directly incorporate) as in the overall context of the invention (student mode/operation) braking is the correct/actually intended input)
Regarding Claim 10, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 9, wherein the step (a) comprises additionally collecting driving information”([0018]”… The student mode may limit vehicle acceleration/velocity (e.g., to a threshold amount of acceleration/velocity) even for intended acceleration/velocity. The system may not allow or may limit rapid changes in acceleration even when the requested acceleration is below the maximum acceleration allowed by the student mode.” Here teaches that rapid “changes” in acceleration which implicitly teaches a recognition of the current acceleration (driving information))” and surrounding environment information in addition to the driver’s control input.”( [0018] Referring now to FIG. 5, in some examples, the system, while in the student mode, monitors the area surrounding the vehicle. For example, the system uses cameras, radar, and/or lidar sensors to detect the presence of objects in front of or near the vehicle (e.g., parking spaces, vehicles, pedestrians, curbs, etc.).” Here teaches monitoring of surrounding (environment information) is used for determining intent/if acceleration should be limited))
Regarding Claim 11, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the step (b) comprises generating input integration data by integrating the information collected in the step (a) and detecting the driver’s driving intention.”([0017]-[0019] give the example of a student entering the parking lot and how student mode operates during such, shows that environment (location data determining the student is in a parking lot) is combined with the driver inputs and vehicle state (currently approaching a parking spot) is used to determine is a pressing of the accelerator was intended or not)
Regarding Claim 13, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 9, wherein the step (b) comprises disregarding the driver’s control input for an acceleration input and incorporating the driver’s control input for a deceleration input into driving.”( [0015] The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration. That is, when a student driver or new driver unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal, the vehicle, while in student driving mode, may be limited to a maximum acceleration/throttle/velocity that is lower than the vehicle's maximum acceleration. As another example, the system may limit acceleration/velocity when objects are detected in front (or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle) of the vehicle (e.g., via the sensing system 12 of FIG. 1) such as another vehicle, pedestrians, a building, etc.” read in the context of [0016] Here teaches that “some” controls are limited (disregarding) which include an acceleration input, implicitly from “some” others would not be, and given that the context is to aid in improving the safety of learning how to park implicitly the deceleration input is not changed (i.e. is incorporated) as this input is a proper/natural part of a parking sequence.)
Regarding Claim 14, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 13, wherein the step (b) comprises incorporating the driver’s control input for the acceleration input into the driving when receiving a separate command for manual driving from a user wherein the separate command is a command input through an acceleration control permission input that is operated by the driver to permit acceleration control.”( [0020] The student mode may be enabled manually by an occupant of the vehicle. For example, the student mode may be enabled in response to actuation of a user input or human machine interface (HMI) at a console, a gear selector, or a display of the vehicle. The student mode may be enabled via a user input (e.g., voice input, interaction with a user device in communication with the vehicle such as a mobile phone, touch screen, etc.).” Here teaches that student mode is enabled through an interface (separate command) thus the when not enabled (i.e. turned off through a “separate command” for manual driving via the interface) the unintentional acceleration would not be limited, thus when student mode is turned off acceleration control is operated by the driver without vehicle intervention)
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) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravuri as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of US 8106756 B2, “Adaptive Interface Providing Apparatus and Method”, Yoon et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Ravuri teaches “A vehicle apparatus comprising: a plurality of input modules comprising a driver control input module configured to receive a driving control input from the driver, and further comprising at least one of a surrounding environment recognition module configured to generate surrounding environment information, (See [0016]-[0018]
Detecting of driver control input (driver pressing of accelerator or brake pdal) and teaches examples of the vehicle monitoring/using environmental data (detected nearby objects) driving information data (location data to determine if in a parking lot) and);” and a vehicle control system comprising a processor and memory configured to control autonomous driving and manual driving based on the information received by the input module and to limit a driver’s driving behavior based on a previously classified category.”( [0017] The system, while in student mode, may detect the unintended acceleration. When an unintended acceleration is detected, the system may automatically reduce or halt the acceleration entirely. In some scenarios (e.g., when objects are detected in front of or near the vehicle or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle), the system may slow the vehicle by applying the brake. The student mode may limit vehicle acceleration/velocity (e.g., to a threshold amount of acceleration/velocity) even for intended acceleration/velocity. The system may not allow or may limit rapid changes in acceleration even when the requested acceleration is below the maximum acceleration allowed by the student mode. Whenever the student mode limits control of the vehicle (e.g., by reducing acceleration or applying the brake), the system may provide a visual, audible, and/or haptic alert or warning to the driver of the vehicle (i.e., notifying the driver that control was limited by the student mode).) ” , wherein the vehicle control system is configured to, by default, not directly reflect the driver's control input for acceleration into vehicle control and to autonomously control acceleration of the vehicle based on a surrounding environment, and to directly incorporate the driver's control input for deceleration into the vehicle control.”( [0015] The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration. That is, when a student driver or new driver unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal, the vehicle, while in student driving mode, may be limited to a maximum acceleration/throttle/velocity that is lower than the vehicle's maximum acceleration. As another example, the system may limit acceleration/velocity when objects are detected in front (or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle) of the vehicle (e.g., via the sensing system 12 of FIG. 1) such as another vehicle, pedestrians, a building, etc.” + [0017] The system, while in student mode, may detect the unintended acceleration. When an unintended acceleration is detected, the system may automatically reduce or halt the acceleration entirely. Here teaches that in student mode acceleration inputs are not directly reflected instead the autonomous vehicle navigation/control)
Ravuri however does not teach recognizing/receiving “driver behavior detection information”
Yoon et al teaches a vehicle control system which determines if the operation of a driver is safe or not based on the surrounding environment information, driver behavior, driving information, and driver control inputs. (Column 3, lines 19-41, “The statistics database unit 110 stores and manages information on an average degree of attention required when there is a change in at least one of a driving operation, the state of a car, and an external environment, on a degree of attention required for interface manipulation when a driver manipulates interfaces of a car, and on a similarity between the functions of the interfaces. The statistics database unit 110 is described in detail with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B.
(19) The state of the car includes speed, tire pressure, duration of use, and other information on the car. The external environment includes weather information such as temperature and humidity, the state of a road surface, the state of a road (for example, a curved road), and other factors which may externally influence driving of the car.
(20) In order to obtain the average degree of attention, a number of drivers are firstly classified into driver groups according to a predetermined driver classification criterion such as gender, age, race, and physical features. The average degree of attention is an average value of degrees of attention required for individual drivers of a specific driver group when there is a change in conditions, i.e., a change in at least one of, for example, a driving operation, the state of a car, and an external environment.” Here teaches determining accounting for surroundings, driving information, driver behavior, and driver control inputs to determine the needed amount of attention for safe driving)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Ravuri to include accounting for driver behavior for determining if the inputted command as intended during student mode. Such a modification would be obvious under the KSR rational of “Use of Known Technique To Improve Similar Devices (Methods, or Products) in the Same Way”. (I) Ravuri teaches the base device however it lacks the “improvement” of using “driver behavior” to determine if an operation was intended or not (i.e. belongs to a first or second classification). (II)Yoon teaches a similar device (a vehicle interface control system) which determines if an if a current level of attention is proper for a given “change” (changes in yoon includes manipulation of the accelerator/driver input controls), wherein the needed safe level of attention is based on all of surrounding information (e.g. other objects), driving information (e.g. car status), driver control inputs, and the driver’s behavior. (III) Applying the improvement of detecting and accounting for driver behavior for determining if a change in driver input was intended or not the current context as taught by Yoon would improve the operation of Ravuri in the same way as it improves the operation in Yoon. In general both devices account for the current context, however the modification is including the context of Ravuri to include accounting for driver behavior as taught by Yoon. Thus allowing for intended operation/danger determinations which can more accurately by adjusted. The underlying principle of operation of Ravuri is not changed in the modification and the teachings of Yoon are still being used to determine if a current situation/context.
Regarding Claim 17, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle apparatus of claim 16, wherein the vehicle control system incorporates the driver’s control input for deceleration control into driving without any change and controls the autonomous driving by disregarding the driver’s control input for acceleration control.”( [0015] The student driving mode or learning driver mode may limit some control of the vehicle such as unintended or unexpected acceleration. That is, when a student driver or new driver unintentionally presses the acceleration pedal instead of the brake pedal, the vehicle, while in student driving mode, may be limited to a maximum acceleration/throttle/velocity that is lower than the vehicle's maximum acceleration. As another example, the system may limit acceleration/velocity when objects are detected in front (or predicted to cross in front of the vehicle) of the vehicle (e.g., via the sensing system 12 of FIG. 1) such as another vehicle, pedestrians, a building, etc.” read in the context of [0016] Here teaches that “some” controls are limited (disregarding) which include an acceleration input, implicitly from “some” others would not be, and given that the context is to aid in improving the safety of learning how to park implicitly the deceleration input is not changed (i.e. is incorporated directly) as this input is a proper/natural part of a parking sequence)
Regarding Claim 18, Ravuri teaches “The vehicle apparatus of claim 17, wherein the vehicle control system incorporates the acceleration control into the driving when receiving a separate user command for the manual driving, wherein the separate user command is a command from a user-operable acceleration control permission input configured to permit the driver's acceleration control.”( [0020] The student mode may be enabled manually by an occupant of the vehicle. For example, the student mode may be enabled in response to actuation of a user input or human machine interface (HMI) at a console, a gear selector, or a display of the vehicle. The student mode may be enabled via a user input (e.g., voice input, interaction with a user device in communication with the vehicle such as a mobile phone, touch screen, etc.).” Here teaches that the student mode is enabled (and implicitly disabled) via the interface thus when disabled through the interface (separate user command for manual driving) the unintentional accelerator pedal presses would be implemented as the student driver mode is disabled.)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of US 20200086861 A1, “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING VEHICLE TRAJECTORY”, McGill et al.
Regarding Claim 11, Ellis teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 10, wherein the step (b) comprises generating input integration data by integrating the information collected in the step”(( [0035] The vehicle control system uses various parameters. These may be user-defined and may be fixed. In one configuration, the user-defined parameters include as a maximum allowable deceleration (a.sup.min) and a maximum allowable acceleration (a.sup.max), where a.sup.min is less than zero and a.sup.max is greater than zero. A vehicle's acceleration cannot be greater than the maximum allowable acceleration. Likewise, the vehicle's deceleration cannot be greater than the maximum allowable deceleration.
[0036] In one configuration, the parameters are dynamic. For example, acceleration limits may be contextual. The context may be provided via the speed limits provided to the controller. The controller parameters may represent fixed limits.” Which “contextual” is [0036] of Ellis is understood to correspond with [0025]f Additionally while Ellis does use the term “driver intent”, the “driver intent” of Ellis corresponds to “driver input” in the applicant’s claim/terminology whereas when read in light of the applicant’s specification “driver intent” is understood to correspond with a intended trajectory/maneuver (e.g. intends a u-turn as opposed to a left turn) from [0066]-[0068])
Ellis in however does not detect “driver intent” as read in light of the specification, while Ellis does use the term “driver intent” this equates more to “Driver input” as read in light of the applicant’s specification, whereas “driver intent” in light of the applicant’s specification equates more to an intended maneuver or trajectory (u-turn, left turn, etc).
McGill et al teaches a system for determining drive intent (future trajectory or maneuver) based on all of driver behavior information, driver input information, driving information, and surrounding environment information. i.e. “(a) and detecting the driver’s driving intention.” ([0027] In connection with predicting the trajectory of vehicle 100, trajectory prediction system 170 can store various kinds of model-related data 260 in database 250. As shown in FIG. 1, trajectory prediction system 170 receives sensor data from sensor system 120. For example, in some embodiments, trajectory prediction system 170 receives image data from one or more cameras 126. Trajectory prediction system 170 may also receive LIDAR data from LIDAR sensors 124, radar data from radar sensors 123, and/or sonar data from sonar sensors 125, depending on the particular embodiment. In some embodiments, trajectory prediction system 170 also receives inputs from vehicle systems 140. Examples include, without limitation, steering wheel angle, gas pedal (accelerator) position, linear velocity, and angular velocity. Steering-wheel-angle and gas-pedal-position data are examples of what may be termed controller-area-network (CAN bus) data, and linear velocity and angular velocity are examples of what may be termed Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) data. As also indicated in FIG. 1, trajectory prediction system 170, in particular control module 235, can communicate with vehicle systems 140 to control, at least in part, certain aspects of the operation of vehicle 100 such as steering, in some situations.” Here teaches environment information (from lidars), driving input (steering wheel agnle, gas pedal position data), driving information (linear velocity and angular velocity) + [0070] teaches eye tracking (driver behavior) information is also collected)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to substitute the threshold based safety limits instead with a safe-unsafe trajectory prediction and determination as taught by McGill et al. One would be motivated to implement a trajectory based determination to improve the operation of the system by allowing the system to more closely follow natural operation (avoid unnecessarily operating/overriding the driver). This improvement (of collision avoidance and compatibility with natural operation is taught by McGill ([0021] In various embodiments, the predicted vehicle trajectories and their associated confidence scores can be used to control, at least in part, the operation of a vehicle. For example, if a particular likely trajectory is determined to be unsafe, a system in accordance with the embodiments disclosed herein can intervene to prevent the vehicle from traversing the unsafe trajectory. This can be accomplished, in some embodiments, through the system taking partial or complete control of the steering of the vehicle for a period of sufficient duration to avoid the danger. In general, the techniques described herein can be applied to at least the following use cases: (1) predicting whether the vehicle is going to hit an object or obstacle to improve automatic collision avoidance; and (2) determining which possible vehicle trajectory is most compatible with the way the driver wants to drive to improve the quality of the driving experience for the driver.)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Ellis teaches “The vehicle control method of claim 11, wherein the step (b) comprises performing learning based on driving path prediction results and results of the detection of the driver’s driving intention and updating driver’s driving intention detection logic.”(McGill [0048] In some embodiments, in training the confidence estimator 430, the loss function is defined as the L2 error between the predicted confidence scores computed using the coefficients output by the model and the actual confidence scores (i.e., confidence scores determined relative to the actual trajectory taken by the vehicle in the training data). In some embodiments, the error is computed with respect to the average predicted direction of travel. In other embodiments, the average error is computed over a set of samples. For example, in one embodiment, confidence estimator 430 samples from the distribution, computes the error between that and the path the vehicle actually took in the training data, and averages the error over a set of samples. In general, the confidence score can be represented by any loss metric well-defined over the variational predictor and the expert predictor(s). One illustrative choice is displacement error at the end (limit) of the predictive temporal horizon (e.g., the difference between an actual trajectory at the end of the predictive temporal horizon and the predicted trajectory at the end of the predictive temporal horizon). Another illustrative choice is root-mean-squared-error (RMSE) along the entire trajectory. Both of these metrics are used, in some embodiments.” Here teaches the path prediction (driver intent) model learns by comparing to predicted to driven path)
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 KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights