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 .
Status of Claims
This first non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 01/23/2025.
Claims 9-12 and 14-17 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "… deactivate the automated lateral guidance in response to detecting the at least one deactivation event..." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no introduction to “at least one deactivation event” preceding this recitation to make clear what this limitation is referring to.
For the purposes of continued compact prosecution and examination, the Examiner presumes this limitation refers to preceding limitation “…at least one sensor configured to detect at least one driver-intervention event;...” The Applicant should clarify if the “at least one driver-intervention event” is the same as “the at least one deactivation event.”
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.
Claims 9-10, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Künzer (DE 102018210320 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Künzer discloses a lane guidance assistant for a vehicle (see at least ¶ [0001-0003] of the machine translation), comprising:
at least one sensor configured to detect at least one driver-intervention event (see at least ¶ [0020-0030] of the machine translation and Fig. 2 disclosing sensors on a steering wheel to detect a driver’s hands and determine intervention);
an electronic control unit, configured to perform a method for operating the lane guidance assistant of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0002] and [0010] of the machine translation disclosing an electronic control unit for automated longitudinal or lateral control), comprising:
activating an automated lateral guidance of the vehicle, wherein in accordance with the activation a steering torque is applied by means of a steering system (see at least ¶ [0002], [0006], [0010-0011], [0046], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing an electronic control unit for automated longitudinal or lateral control);
deactivating the automated lateral guidance in response to detecting at least one deactivation event, wherein in accordance with the deactivation the applied steering torque is reduced within a deactivation duration (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time);
determining that the at least one deactivation event is a driver-intervention event initiated by a driver of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time);
reducing the deactivation duration to a reduced deactivation duration in response to determining that the deactivation event is the driver-intervention event (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time, where the minimum time duration decreases if the driver inputs a larger steering angle or a stronger steering torque);
and in accordance with the deactivation, reducing the steering torque within the reduced deactivation duration (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time, where the minimum time duration decreases if the driver inputs a larger steering angle or a stronger steering torque).
Regarding claim 10, Künzer discloses the driver-intervention event comprises: driver-applied steering wheel torque and/or steering wheel angle change (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time).
Regarding claim 14, Künzer discloses determining a type and/or an intensity of the driver intervention event, wherein the reduced deactivation duration is determined based on the determined type and/or intensity of the driver intervention event (see at least ¶ [0010-0011], [0020-0030], and [0074-0075] of the machine translation disclosing deactivating automated lateral control for a vehicle when the control unit detects a steering torque from a driver intervening on the steering wheel within a period of time, where the minimum time duration decreases if the driver inputs a larger steering angle or a stronger steering torque).
Regarding claim 17, Künzer discloses a vehicle with a lane guidance assistant of claim 16 (see at least ¶ [0001-0003] of the machine translation).
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.
Claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Künzer, as applied to claim 9 above, and in view of Inomata (US 20160272202 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Künzer does not explicitly disclose the driver-intervention event comprises: driver-initiated turn-signal activation.
However, Inomata suggests the driver-intervention event comprises: driver-initiated turn-signal activation (see at least ¶ [0031] disclosing a lane keeping assist function being interrupted when a turn signal is activated).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the turn signal based deactivation of the lane keeping assistance of Inomata into the lateral guidance control of Künzer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward lane assistance systems while accounting for situations to deactivate the lane assistance system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that activating a turn signal would present a situation where lane assistance would not be necessary or potentially hinder vehicle operations.
Regarding claim 12 Künzer does not explicitly disclose the driver-intervention event comprises: driver-initiated braking.
However, Inomata suggests the driver-intervention event comprises: driver-initiated braking (see at least ¶ [0031] disclosing a lane keeping assist function being interrupted when braking).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the braking based deactivation of the lane keeping assistance of Inomata into the lateral guidance control of Künzer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward lane assistance systems while accounting for situations to deactivate the lane assistance system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that braking would present a situation where lane assistance would not be necessary or potentially hinder vehicle operations.
Regarding claim 15, Künzer does not explicitly disclose the deactivation duration is predetermined as a function of a current speed of the vehicle.
However, Inomata suggests the deactivation duration is predetermined as a function of a current speed of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0031] disclosing a lane keeping assist function being interrupted when the vehicle falls outside a predetermined range of vehicle speeds).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the vehicle speed based deactivation of the lane keeping assistance of Inomata into the lateral guidance control of Künzer with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward lane assistance systems while accounting for situations to deactivate the lane assistance system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that falling outside a range of vehicle speeds would present a situation where lane assistance would not be necessary or potentially hinder vehicle operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 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, 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/30/26
Prosecution Insights