DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed July 20, 2026, claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending in the application. The applicant has cancelled claim 5. The applicant has added claim 11. The applicant has amended claims 1-4 and 7-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami (US 2021/0237770 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses:
a method for operating a vehicle with a multi-actuator control system ([0032], [0040]; FIG. 1: 53, 60, 70; automatic driving control), comprising:
(a) monitoring a driving condition of the vehicle ([0035]; FIG. 1: 52; steering limiter detects whether or not the steering control amount (torque amount) of the input steering actuator exceeds a control amount threshold value);
(b) detecting a situation for the vehicle in which driving stabilization measures are needed ([0039], [0040]; limit determination part determines whether there is a change in any of the surrounding state and the control state of the subject vehicle and the subject vehicle speed associated a change in a threshold value); and
(c) providing feedback to a driver in response to the detecting the situation for the vehicle, the feedback including adjusting operation of or operating at least one actuator of the multi-actuator control system ([0035], [0040], [0088]; the automatic driving control part receiving the notification of the abnormality detection confirms the surrounding state based on the surrounding environment information being input from the information acquisition part, and determines the target steering angle, the target braking amount, and the target acceleration amount for securing the safety of the subject vehicle)
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami discloses that step (b) includes detecting a situation in which driving stabilization measures are foreseeably needed. ([0035]; Kawakami discloses that control of vehicle steering prevents dangerous control performed by the vehicle, which indicates that an impending dangerous control situation was detected for which driving stabilization measures are foreseeably needed.)
Regarding claim 4, Kawakami discloses that step (b) includes detecting a situation in which driving stabilization measures are currently needed. ([0035], [0088]; FIG. 17; Kawakami discloses that control of vehicle steering prevents dangerous control performed by the vehicle, which indicates that driving stabilization measures are currently needed; [0088] the automatic driving control part receiving the notification of the abnormality detection confirms the surrounding state based on the surrounding environment information being input from the information acquisition part, and determines the target steering angle, the target braking amount, and the target acceleration amount for securing the safety of the subject vehicle.)
Regarding claim 9, Kawakami discloses an arrangement for operating a vehicle comprising: a controller configured to carry out a method according to claim 1. ([0031], [0033]; FIG. 1: 20, 21, 22, 23, 23, 100; automatic driving ECU includes an information acquisition part, an automatic driving control part, and a limit determination part; the information acquisition part acquires the surrounding environment information and the subject vehicle position information from the surrounding environment information acquisition parts and the subject vehicle position information acquisition part, respectively, via a network, collects information, and inputs the collected information to the automatic driving control part.)
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami discloses that the arrangement is configured for use in a vehicle with the multi-actuator control system. ([0032]; FIG. 1: 53, 60, 70; steering actuator; brake control device; acceleration control device)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Kuehner et al. (US 2023/0227070 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakami does not disclose that step © includes adjusting a weighting for a steering controller of the vehicle.
Keuhner, addressing the same problem of how to provide feedback to a driver, teaches a vehicle that includes the capability to provide computer-controlled feedback, such as automatic maneuvers, in order to control the vehicle with respect to friction as an enhanced safety control feature ([0001]), wherein a safety control system automatically provides feedback to the driver, such as feedback impacting the steering wheel input controls, and wherein the feedback is a tactile resistive weight that is applied against the steering wheel ([0005]) for the benefit of discouraging (or preventing) the driver from continuing to turn the steering wheel in the direction in which the driver had been turning the steering wheel ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Keuhner with the method of Kawakami because that would have enabled the method to discourage (or prevent) a driver from continuing to turn the steering wheel in the direction in which the driver had been turning the steering wheel.
7. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Anderson et al. (US 2017/0137023 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kawakami does not disclose that the feedback is selected from a group of feedback measures consisting of: control system of an active chassis, control system of a semi- active suspension, control system of a reversible seat belt tensioner, control system of ventilation, influencing a volume of media playback, playback on a display.
Anderson, addressing the same problem of how to provide feedback to a driving situation, teaches an active vehicle suspension system ([0008]), wherein vehicle accident and pre-crash detection systems use an avoidance measure threshold to determine if the vehicle can avoid an object ([0136]), and wherein an active safety system engages an automated collision avoidance braking system, thus engaging the brakes even without driver input, while also affecting a change in the electronic suspension system of the vehicle ([0137]) for the benefit of avoiding a collision with the object ([0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Anderson with the method of Kawakami because that would have enabled the method to avoid a collision with an object.
Regarding claim 7, Kawakami discloses that step (c) includes: providing the feedback in a complementary manner. ([0035], [0090]; FIG. 17: S402, S403; Kawakami discloses that the method successively changes a control amount threshold value for steering control.)
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami discloses that step (c) includes: providing the feedback in a step-by-step manner. ([0035], [0090]; FIG. 17: S402, S403; Kawakami discloses that the steering control sequentially determines accelerator and brake control.)
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami and Kuehner further in view of Araki et al. (US 2024/0034335 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination of Kawakami and Kuehner discloses that step (c) includes adjusting a weighting for a steering controller of the vehicle (see the rejection of claim 2 above).
The above combination does not disclose that step (c) includes combining weightings of different controllers of different actuator systems.
Araki, addressing the same problem of how to give feedback to a driver, teaches an adaptive dynamic driver trainer ([0001]), wherein if the driver is turning in too soon, a small amount of resistance might be introduced into the steering wheel to nudge the driver back onto the proper line (e.g., using an MPC controller); or if the driver brakes too soon going into a corner, pedal resistance or vibration at the brake pedal can provide feedback to the driver for the benefit of notifying the driver to be braking later for the corner ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Araki with the method of the above combination because that would have enabled the method to notify a driver to be braking later for a corner.
Response to Arguments
9. The applicant's arguments, filed July 20, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant traverses the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-11.
Against the rejection of claim 1, the applicant argues that Kawakami does not disclose “(c) providing feedback to a driver in response to the detecting the situation for the vehicle, the feedback including adjusting operation of or operating at least one actuator of the multi-actuator control system.” (Emphasis added by applicant.) Particularly, Kawakami discloses that the steering limiter 52 detects whether or not the steering control amount (torque amount) of the input steering actuator 53 exceeds the control amount threshold value being input from the limit determination part 23, and when the steering control amount exceeds the control amount threshold value, the steering limiter 52 changes the steering control amount to fall within a range not exceeding the control amount threshold value (par. 0035). For example, the steering control amount is changed to a value corresponding to the control amount threshold value (par. 0035). The control amount threshold value is calculated in consideration of characteristics of the vehicle, force applied to the vehicle, a movement amount of the vehicle in the lateral direction, and a time until an automatic drive system or a driver copes with a situation, for example, and a proportional relationship, quadratic curve, an upwardly convexed form, and a downwardly convexed form, for example, are applied (par. 0072).
As best understood, the Office considers changing the steering control amount by the steering limiter 52 to be considered detecting a borderline situation and providing feedback to the driver. However, Kawakami does not disclose providing or adjusting any kind of feedback to the driver. Particularly, there is no suggestion that the changing the steering control amount by the steering limiter 52 is perceptible to the driver in any way, such that it might be considered feedback provided “to the driver.”
Regarding this argument, Kawakami discloses, as cited in the Final Rejection above, that an automatic driving control determines a steering angle and a braking amount ([0088]; FIG. 17), both of which are actions that would be apparent to the driver, who could not avoid observing that the automatic driving control had taken the steering and braking of the vehicle from the control of the driver. Furthermore, the applicant’s amended claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “the feedback including adjusting operation of or operating at least one actuator of the multi-actuator control system.” By the language of this limitation, the adjusting of operation of an actuator and the operating of an actuator each constitute feedback to a driver. The claim, itself, does not recite that anything in addition is necessary to constitute feedback to the driver.
Though not necessary to respond to this argument, it is noted that secondary references Kuehner and Araki explicitly characterize the changing of weighting of a steering actuator and of a braking actuator as feedback to a driver. Either reference could be used to teach the disputed limitation, if necessary.
Against the rejection of claims 6-8, the applicant argues that the proposed combination of Kawakami and Anderson does not arrive at the limitations of claims 6-8. Claims 6-8 depend from and incorporate the limitations of claim 1. As discussed above with respect to the §102 rejection of claim 1 over Kawakami, Kawakami does not anticipate the limitations of claim 1 because it does not disclose “(c) providing feedback to a driver in response to the detecting the situation for the vehicle, the feedback including adjusting operation of or operating at least one actuator of the multi-actuator control system,” as recited in claim 1. (Emphasis added by applicant.) Anderson also does not teach these limitations. Therefore, the proposed combination of Kawakami and Anderson fails to arrive at the limitations of the claims. Accordingly, the §103 rejections of the claims should be withdrawn.
Regarding this argument, the above response to the argument against clam 1 is also responsive to this argument.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Veen et al. (US 2023/0391352 A1) discloses providing feedback to a driver by adjusting a weighting for a steering controller.
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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights