DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9 are pending. Claims dated 07/10/2026 are being examined.
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
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “when the erroneous operation probability is greater than the predetermined erroneous operation probability upon detecting the change operation, perform a more gradual change in the execution state than requested by the detected change operation”.
The closest prior art Minnerup (US-20250153729-A1) while teaching a case the erroneous operation probability being greater than the predetermined erroneous operation probability upon detecting the change operation ([0017] In this case, the trustworthiness value is based on confirmation actions performed—correctly or incorrectly—by the user in various situations in the past. An assessment of the confirmation actions performed in the past for the purpose of determining the trustworthiness value may comprise, for example, a subsequent analysis of recorded captured circumstances at times before, during and after the respective confirmation actions; [0044] …provision may also be made, according to one embodiment variant, for the driving assistance system to sometimes request the vehicle occupant to confirm situations in which the confirmation action would not even suffice to activate the driving assistance function),
does not want to change the execution state ([0044] … If the vehicle occupant performs a confirmation action in such a situation, the driving assistance function would not be activated, but the captured confirmation action could, under certain circumstances, have a negative effect on the trustworthiness value of the vehicle occupant).
None of the prior art references disclose all the above features, and even in combination, there would be no motivation to combine or modify the vehicle driving assistance apparatus of Minnerup to change the execution state. A person of ordinary skill in the art and/or skilled artisan would recognize from the conflicting control schemes, that the references discourage one another’s approaches, thereby undermining any rationale to combine. Claim 9 is similarly allowed, directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The dependent claims 2, 5, and 6 are allowed based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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 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.
(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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minnerup et al. (US-20250153729-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Minnerup.
Regarding claim 8, Minnerup teaches a vehicle driving assistance method for executing a driving assistance control to assist a driver of an own vehicle in driving operations, wherein the vehicle driving assistance method comprises steps of:
when an erroneous operation probability is equal to or less than a predetermined erroneous operation probability upon detecting a change operation performed by the driver of the own vehicle to request a change in an execution state of the driving assistance control, changing the execution state as requested by the detected change operation ([0068] Specifically, the captured activation confirmation can be taken into account on the basis of the trustworthiness value, that is to say, for example, can be weighted in comparison with an influence of the other captured circumstances, for example when deciding whether or not the driving assistance function is activated; In Minnerup [0068], the trustworthiness value that results in activation or no activation is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed predetermined erroneous operation probability),
the erroneous operation probability indicating a possibility that the driver of the own vehicle erroneously performed the change operation, and increasing as the possibility increases ([0017] In this case, the trustworthiness value is based on confirmation actions performed—correctly or incorrectly—by the user in various situations in the past. An assessment of the confirmation actions performed in the past for the purpose of determining the trustworthiness value may comprise, for example, a subsequent analysis of recorded captured circumstances at times before, during and after the respective confirmation actions; [0078] Such an evaluation can be retrospectively taken as a basis for determining, for example, whether a user has incorrectly activated a congestion pilot function, provided only for the freeway, on a highway or has attempted to activate it by means of an activation confirmation. In such a case, the trustworthiness value of this user can be reduced and trust placed in his future decisions by the driving assistance system can therefore be reduced), and
NOTE: In Minerupp, as the number of actions performed in the past by the user are continued to be incorrect, the trustworthiness value decreases, which indicates an increase in the likelihood that the user chose an incorrect/erroneous current operation. Examiner interprets this increase in the likelihood that the user chose an incorrect/erroneous current operation based on the decrease in trustworthiness value corresponds to the claimed “increasing as the possibility increases”.
when the erroneous operation probability is greater than the predetermined erroneous operation probability upon detecting the change operation, perform a more gradual change in the execution state than requested by the detected change operation (--Under standard patent examination and board practice (such as Ex parte Schulhauser), this is a conditional limitation that need not be carried out for the method to be performed and therefore not also required by the prior art to perform, see Note below--).
Note: The method step to perform a more gradual change is written in a conditional manner such that the performing does not occur when the erroneous operation probability is equal to or less than a predetermined erroneous operation probability. It has been held that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See Also MPEP § 2111.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120143392 A1: Lurie teaches determination of an erroneous operation probability as a confidence level value, and determination of whether to keep a driver control input the same or to adjust it based on the confidence level value compared to a threshold.
US 20210213967 A1: Tochigi teaches a driving assistance apparatus that detects accelerator pedal erroneous operation
US 20210197844 A1: Kaminade teaches a driving assistance apparatus that detects accelerator pedal erroneous operation
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights