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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
2. The application is filed on 04/02/2025 but claims the benefit of foreign application number KR 10-2024-0125799 filed on 09/13/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1:
Step Analysis 1: Statutory Category? Yes. The claim is an device claim.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determined that the activation of the speed limit function. This limitation, as drafted, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “determining activation of speed function,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “determining activation of the speed limit function” language, the claim encompasses a user simply determining activation of the speed limit function in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic activation of the speed limit function does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements: outputs a notification for deactivating the speed limit function performs the output step. The outputs a notification step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of outputs a notification step), and amounts to mere data gathering or manipulations, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputs a notification that performs the determination step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the determination step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the outputs a notification for deactivating the speed limit function).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the ctivation of the speed limit function). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determination step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the driver circuit is anything other than a generic, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or determination of speed limit function is a well understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the determining step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 of this title, 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PONGRACZ (US 20150081192 A1) (hereinafter PONGRACZ) in view of Schmitz (US 20030023364 A1) (hereinafter Schmitz).
Regarding claim 1, PONGRACZ discloses a vehicle comprising: an input/output interface (para 49, FIG., control unit 1, receives data from external devices via an interface 99); and
a processor, wherein when a speed limit function of the vehicle is activated, the processor determines whether the activation of the speed limit function is an error event (claim 14, A computer readable medium having a computer program, which is executable by a processor, monitoring acceleration monitoring when operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition, para 32, By limiting the difference between the actual acceleration and the permissible acceleration to a threshold value, it is ensured that an error response triggered, strong inadvertent accelerations), and
when it is determined that the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 54, monitoring unit 200 have a signal which indicates whether the particular monitoring method found an error, para 66-67, monitoring unit 200 in this case reports that an error is present in the drive train, Switching control block 450 normally activates the switch in switching block 600 in such a way that the output signal of acceleration monitoring unit 100 is conducted to evaluation block 400, para 56, transmits a signal providing information about this activation of switching block 600 to evaluation block 400 and to measures block 500),
outputs a notification through the input/output interface (para 54, transmits outputs signal of acceleration monitoring unit 100 or outputs signal of rotational speed monitoring unit 200 to evaluation block 400, para 32, By limiting difference between actual acceleration and permissible acceleration to a threshold value, ensured that error response immediately triggered at clear, strong inadvertent accelerations).
PONGRACZ specifically fails to disclose outputs a notification for deactivating the speed limit function through the input/output interface.
In analogous art, Schmitz discloses outputs for deactivating the speed limit function (Abstract, If the current speed of the vehicle is higher than the highest predefined speed limiting value, the speed limiter is deactivated, para 16, a signal for reactivating the deactivated speed limiter is generated if the activation element is activated, para 41, interface with the driver which is formed at the input device 8 comprises essentially a knob 7 which the driver can activate by pressing, and a signal lamp 6 (LED). By activating the knob 7 one or more times, the driver can make various settings relating to the speed limitation, para 60, The states of speed limiter in FIG. 3 are transmitted to input device 8, para 14, after the activation element has been activated, current speed v.sub.act of vehicle increased by a speed difference .DELTA.v is set as current speed limiting value v.sub.lim=v.sub.act+.DELTA.v. Similarly to a cruise control, driver set vehicle to a specific speed and predefine said speed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ to use an acceleration-based method for the safety monitoring of a drive and setpoint torque is calculated in a safety function as a function of the position of the accelerator pedal as taught by Schmitz to use an actual vehicle acceleration is determined, by an acceleration sensor or by differentiating a speed (rotational speed of wheels) and fault situation detected by comparing the actual vehicle acceleration with the expected vehicle acceleration, when actual vehicle acceleration exceeds expected vehicle acceleration by certain amount [Schmitz, Abstract].
Regarding claim 2, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor determines whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event based on first driving data which is driving data of a driver before the speed limit function is activated and second driving data which is the driving data of the driver after the speed limit function is activated (para 38, when operation ended, acceleration monitoring unit re- activated, para 56, output signal of acceleration monitoring unit 100 is transmitted to evaluation and activates switching block 600 accordingly).
Regarding claim 3, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor calculates an error score for determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event based on the first driving data and the second driving data and determines that the activation of the speed limit function is the error event when the error score is a predetermined value or more (para 03, An error situation is detectable by comparing the actual vehicle acceleration and the expected vehicle acceleration, para 32, By limiting the difference between the actual acceleration and the permissible acceleration to a threshold value, it is ensured that an error response is also immediately triggered, para 39, acceleration monitoring unit detects a faulty acceleration and initiates error entry, para 66, A watchdog module monitors correct function of control unit 1, speed monitoring unit 200 reports that error is present in the drive train, para 26, input signal for calculating the vehicle speed on another control unit is missing and a switch to a model-based calculation is made).
Regarding claim 4, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the first driving data includes information about a number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle for a predetermined period, and the processor sets the information about the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle as a weight when calculating the error score (para 23, predetermined condition is selected in such a way that operating state when transmission of sensor signals considered in the acceleration monitoring to electronic arithmetic unit, para 69-75, The list of predetermined conditions, transmit sensor signals considered in acceleration monitoring, assigned sensor to arithmetic unit on acceleration monitoring runs).
Schmitz discloses the speed limiting value which is to be complied with is set by activating a key (7) on an input device and If the current speed of the vehicle is higher than the highest predefined speed limiting value, speed limiter is deactivated or speed of the vehicle plus a speed difference is accepted as speed limiting value) [Abstract] and a signal for deactivating the activated speed limiter can be generated if the predefined time interval mentioned above since the last activation of the activation element has expired and the activation element is activated again after that [012].
Regarding claim 6, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the first driving data and the second driving data include at least one of an acceleration input intensity and an acceleration input holding time of the driver (para 32, predetermined condition met when the actual acceleration is greater by second predefinable threshold value than permissible acceleration, and a setpoint torque or driver input torque is so low that the actual acceleration would still be greater than the permissible acceleration).
Regarding claim 7, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the first driving data and the second driving data include information about the number of times an acceleration input and a deceleration input are alternately input within a predetermined time (para 27, If the motor vehicle is decelerated with aid of the braking system, deviations from actual acceleration occur within scope of the acceleration monitoring, in particular during ascertainment of the permissible acceleration).
Regarding claim 9, PONGRACZ discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the notification for deactivating the speed limit function includes content related to an input unit for deactivating the speed limit function (para 10, acceleration monitoring inadvertent accelerations reliably and quickly detected in all operating states, para 66, If it is detected that fuel is injected despite the injection suppression requested, watchdog deactivation (WDA) takes place as a safe counter measure. A watchdog module, which monitors the correct function of control unit 1, is deactivated).
Regarding claim 10, PONGRACZ fails to discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor automatically deactivates the speed limit function when the activation of the speed limit function is the error event.
In analogous art, Schmitz discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising automatically deactivating the speed limit function when the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 16, a signal for reactivating the deactivated speed limiter is generated if the activation element is activated, para 09, If appropriate, a single speed limiting value can also be predefined for "selection". In the proposed selection method, that speed limiting value which is closest to the current speed of the vehicle and at the same time higher than it is automatically searched for, para 14, a cruise control, the driver can thus set the vehicle to a specific speed and predefine said speed to the automatic system, para 38, prevention of operating errors if the interface between the system and the driver functions as simply, reliably and transparently as possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ to use an acceleration-based method for the safety monitoring of a drive and setpoint torque is calculated in a safety function as a function of the position of the accelerator pedal as taught by Schmitz to use speed limiting value is not the desired speed limiting value either, it is possible, by activating the activation key once more, which again must be done within the predefined time interval after the last activation, to make a further jump to the next highest speed limiting value and so on until the desired limiting speed is set. [Schmitz, para 10].
Regarding claim 11, PONGRACZ discloses a method of controlling a vehicle (para 49, FIG., control unit 1, receives data from external devices via an interface 99), comprising:
when a speed limit function of a vehicle is activated, determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is an error event (claim 14, processor, monitoring acceleration monitoring when operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition, para 32, By limiting the difference between the actual acceleration and the permissible acceleration to a threshold value, it is ensured that an error response triggered, strong inadvertent accelerations, para 38, when the test bench operation is ended, acceleration monitoring unit may be re- activated); and
when it is determined that the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 54, monitoring unit 200 have a signal which indicates whether the particular monitoring method found an error, para 66-67, monitoring unit 200 in this case reports that an error is present in the drive train, Switching control block 450 normally activates the switch in switching block 600 in such a way that the output signal of acceleration monitoring unit 100 is conducted to evaluation block 400, para 56, transmits a signal providing information about activation of switching block 600 to evaluation block 400 and to measures block 500).
PONGRACZ specifically fails to disclose outputting a notification for deactivating the speed limit function.
In analogous art, Schmitz discloses outputting a notification for deactivating the speed limit function (Abstract, If the current speed of the vehicle is higher than the highest predefined speed limiting value, the speed limiter is deactivated, para 16, a signal for reactivating the deactivated speed limiter is generated if the activation element is activated, para 41, interface with the driver which is formed at the input device 8 comprises essentially a knob 7 which the driver can activate by pressing, and a signal lamp 6 (LED). By activating the knob 7 one or more times, the driver can make various settings relating to the speed limitation, para 60, The states of the speed limiter illustrated in FIG. 3 are transmitted to the input device 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ to use an acceleration-based method for the safety monitoring of a drive and setpoint torque is calculated in a safety function as a function of the position of the accelerator pedal as taught by Schmitz to use an actual vehicle acceleration is determined, by acceleration sensor or by differentiating speed (rotational speed of the wheels) and fault situation detected by comparing actual vehicle acceleration with expected vehicle acceleration, when actual vehicle acceleration exceeds expected vehicle acceleration by a certain amount [Schmitz, Abstract].
Regarding claim 12, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event includes determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event based on first driving data which is driving data of a driver before the speed limit function is activated and second driving data which is the driving data of the driver after the speed limit function is activated (para 38, when the test bench operation is ended, acceleration monitoring unit may be re- activated, para 56, output signal of acceleration monitoring unit 100 is transmitted to evaluation block 400 and activates switching block 600 accordingly, para 03, An error situation is detectable by comparing the actual vehicle acceleration and the expected vehicle acceleration, para 32, By limiting the difference between the actual acceleration and the permissible acceleration to a threshold value, it is ensured that an error response is also immediately triggered).
Regarding claim 13, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the determining of whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event includes: calculating an error score for determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event based on the first driving data and the second driving data; and determining that the activation of the speed limit function is the error event when the error score is a predetermined value or more (para 03, An error situation is detectable by comparing the actual vehicle acceleration and the expected vehicle acceleration, para 32, By limiting the difference between the actual acceleration and the permissible acceleration to a threshold value, it is ensured that an error response is also immediately triggered, para 39, acceleration monitoring unit detects a faulty acceleration and initiates error entry, para 66, A watchdog module monitors correct function of control unit 1, speed monitoring unit 200 reports that error is present in the drive train, para 26, input signal for calculating the vehicle speed on another control unit is missing and a switch to a model-based calculation is made).
Regarding claim 14, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the first driving data includes information about a number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle for a predetermined period, and the calculating of the error score includes setting the information about the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle as a weight when calculating the error score (para 23, predetermined condition is selected in such a way that the operating state when transmission of sensor signals considered in the acceleration monitoring to an electronic arithmetic unit, para 69-75, The list of predetermined conditions, transmit sensor signals considered in acceleration monitoring, assigned sensor to an electronic arithmetic unit on which acceleration monitoring runs).
Schmitz discloses the speed limiting value which is to be complied with is set by activating a key (7) on an input device and If the current speed of the vehicle is higher than the highest predefined speed limiting value, speed limiter is deactivated or speed of the vehicle plus a speed difference is accepted as speed limiting value) [Abstract] and a signal for deactivating the activated speed limiter can be generated if the predefined time interval mentioned above since the last activation of the activation element has expired and the activation element is activated again after that [012].
Regarding claim 16, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the first driving data and the second driving data include at least one of an acceleration input intensity and an acceleration input holding time of the driver (para 32, predetermined condition met when the actual acceleration is greater by second predefinable threshold value than permissible acceleration, and a setpoint torque or driver input torque is so low that the actual acceleration would still be greater than the permissible acceleration).
Regarding claim 17, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the first driving data and the second driving data include information about the number of times an acceleration input and a deceleration input are alternately input within a predetermined time (para 27, If the motor vehicle is decelerated with aid of the braking system, deviations from actual acceleration occur within scope of the acceleration monitoring, in particular during ascertainment of the permissible acceleration).
Regarding claim 19, PONGRACZ discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the notification for deactivating the speed limit function includes content related to an input unit for deactivating the speed limit function (para 10, acceleration monitoring inadvertent accelerations reliably and quickly detected in all operating states, para 66, If it is detected that fuel is injected despite the injection suppression requested, watchdog deactivation (WDA) takes place as a safe counter measure. A watchdog module, which monitors the correct function of control unit 1, is deactivated).
Regarding claim 20, PONGRACZ fails to discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising automatically deactivating the speed limit function when the activation of the speed limit function is the error event.
In analogous art, Schmitz discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising automatically deactivating the speed limit function when the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 16, a signal for reactivating the deactivated speed limiter is generated if the activation element is activated, para 09, If appropriate, a single speed limiting value can also be predefined for "selection". In the proposed selection method, that speed limiting value which is closest to the current speed of the vehicle and at the same time higher than it is automatically searched for, para 14, a cruise control, the driver can thus set the vehicle to a specific speed and predefine said speed to the automatic system, para 38, prevention of operating errors if the interface between the system and the driver functions as simply, reliably and transparently as possible).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ to use an acceleration-based method for the safety monitoring of a drive and setpoint torque is calculated in a safety function as a function of the position of the accelerator pedal as taught by Schmitz to use speed limiting value is not the desired speed limiting value either, it is possible, by activating the activation key once more, which again must be done within the predefined time interval after the last activation, to make a further jump to the next highest speed limiting value and so on until the desired limiting speed is set. [Schmitz, para 10].
7. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PONGRACZ (US 20150081192 A1) (hereinafter PONGRACZ) in view of Schmitz (US 20030023364 A1) (hereinafter Schmitz) and further OLTMANN (EP 4355630 B1) (hereinafter OLTMANN).
Regarding claim 5, PONGRACZ and Schmitz fails to disclose the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor sets the weight to be lower as the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle is higher.
In analogous art, OLTMANN discloses the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the processor sets the weight to be lower as the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle is higher (page 3, automated driving operation will be enabled when the speed limit is exceeded if both the dead reckoning data and the camera track data meet the specified quality requirements, page 2, Upon detection of occurrence of error event, an emergency operation mode is activated, in which automated trajectory control of vehicle is initiated and carried out according to the emergency operation target trajectory stored before occurrence of predetermined error event for a predetermined period of time and/or until the vehicle comes to a standstill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ and Schmitz to use automated driving is activated only when approval has been granted and deactivated when approval is withdrawn as taught by OLTMANN to use automated driving is decided based on decision criteria that are specified as a function of a speed limit in relation to the current driving speed of the vehicle when the speed limit is exceeded if the dead reckoning data or the camera track data meet specified quality requirements [OLTMANN, page 4].
Regarding claim 15, PONGRACZ and Schmitz fail to discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the setting of the information about the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function as the weight when calculating the error score includes setting the weight to be lower as the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle is higher.
In analogous art, OLTMANN discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the setting of the information about the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function as the weight when calculating the error score includes setting the weight to be lower as the number of times the driver uses the speed limit function of the vehicle is higher (page 3, automated driving operation will be enabled when the speed limit is exceeded if both the dead reckoning data and the camera track data meet the specified quality requirements, page 2, Upon detection of occurrence of error event, an emergency operation mode is activated, in which automated trajectory control of vehicle is initiated and carried out according to the emergency operation target trajectory stored before occurrence of predetermined error event for a predetermined period of time and/or until the vehicle comes to a standstill).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ and Schmitz to use automated driving is activated only when approval has been granted and deactivated when approval is withdrawn as taught by OLTMANN to use automated driving is decided based on decision criteria that are specified as a function of a speed limit in relation to the current driving speed of the vehicle when the speed limit is exceeded if the dead reckoning data or the camera track data meet specified quality requirements [OLTMANN, page 4].
8. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PONGRACZ (US 20150081192 A1) (hereinafter PONGRACZ) in view of Schmitz (US 20030023364 A1) (hereinafter Schmitz) and further UETANI (US 20190232976 A1) (hereinafter UETANI).
Regarding claim 8, PONGRACZ and Schmitz fails to disclose the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor recognizes a voice of a driver and determines whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event.
In analogous art, UETANI discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor recognizes a voice of a driver and determines whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 62, by operating an accelerator pedal. The driver's intention may be provided with his or her voice recognized by the computer, para 79, The driver recognizing the message starts the procedure including looking around or taking over the operation of depressing the pedals. These messages described above may be output through the speaker 10 audibly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ and Schmitz to use automated driving is activated when approval has been granted and deactivated when approval is withdrawn as taught by UETANI to help driver audibly recognize recommended mode switching position and thus visually concentrate on monitoring the surroundings with a voice, to reach recommended mode switching position to driver [UETANI, para 29].
Regarding claim 18, PONGRACZ and Schmitz fails to disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event includes recognizing a voice of a driver and determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event.
In analogous art, UETANI discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the determining of whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event includes recognizing a voice of a driver and determining whether the activation of the speed limit function is the error event (para 62, by operating an accelerator pedal. The driver's intention may be provided with his or her voice recognized by the computer, para 79, The driver recognizing the message starts the procedure including looking around or taking over the operation of depressing the pedals. These messages described above may be output through the speaker 10 audibly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of operating state of the drive being monitored with the aid of alternative monitoring instead of acceleration monitoring when the operating state of the drive meets at least one predetermined condition disclosed by PONGRACZ and Schmitz to use automated driving is activated when approval has been granted and deactivated when approval is withdrawn as taught by UETANI to help driver audibly recognize recommended mode switching position and thus visually concentrate on monitoring the surroundings with a voice, to reach recommended mode switching position to driver [UETANI, para 29].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mirza Alam whose telephone number is (469) 295-9286. The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-6:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for Published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MIRZA F ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights