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 .
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 11-27 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the present application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2023/070463 filed on 07/24/2023 & foreign priority for DE foreign application DE10 2022 120 886.9 filed on 08/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it would be appreciated if the two figures had accompanying text with their numbers/S1 to describe what each element is instead of the current format. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 17-18 & 27 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 Claims 17-18, it is unclear what is being claimed by the limitation of “wherein a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area”. The limitations The limitation is not clear on how lateral guidance would be performed when the primary steering system has failed. The specification does not do into much more detail on the lateral guidance or how it would be achieved. Examiner will interpret this limitation being met when any backup/secondary steering method is used to control the lateral guidance of the vehicle.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the motor vehicle" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the motor vehicle" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "An automated motor vehicle" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claim, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Claims 11-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Belling-Hoffmann (US 20230033322 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Belling-Hoffmann teaches A method for operating an automated motor vehicle, the method comprising (see at least [¶02-07, 011]):
establishing a presence of a malfunction of a drive-by-wire system of the automated motor vehicle (Establishing that there is a malfunction in the drive-by-wire system of the automated/autonomous vehicle. see at least [¶02, 013, 041-044, 061, 065, 072, 080-083 & 087-088]);
and taking over of a lateral guidance and/or a longitudinal guidance of the automated motor vehicle by a driver assistance system based on a predetermined activation condition of the driver assistance system being met (Taking over the longitudinal guidance of the automated/autonomous vehicle by a driver assistance system based on a predetermined activation condition (malfunction signal of the steering system) of the driver assistance system being met. see at least [¶019-024, 041, 081-085 & 087-088]).
Regarding Claim 12, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein the method comprises a check as to whether the predetermined activation condition of the driver assistance system is met (Checking if the predetermined activation condition (malfunction signal of the steering system) of the driver assistance system is met and if not continue controlling the vehicle as normal. see at least [¶019-025, 041-044, 080-085 & 087-088]).
Regarding Claim 13, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein a takeover of the longitudinal guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises decelerating and/or maintaining a distance to a vehicle in front of the automated motor vehicle (The takeover of the longitudinal guidance of the vehicle comprises decelerating/braking the vehicle. see at least [¶078-083]).
Regarding Claim 14, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein a takeover of the longitudinal guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises decelerating and/or maintaining a distance to a vehicle in front of the automated motor vehicle (The takeover of the longitudinal guidance of the vehicle comprises decelerating/braking the vehicle. see at least [¶078-083])
Regarding Claim 15, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein a deceleration of the automated motor vehicle takes place until the automated motor vehicle is at a standstill (The deceleration/braking of the vehicle takes place until the automated/autonomous vehicle is brought to a standstill/stop. see at least [¶063 & 082-083]).
Regarding Claim 16, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein a deceleration of the automated motor vehicle takes place until the automated motor vehicle is at a standstill (The deceleration/braking of the vehicle takes place until the automated/autonomous vehicle is brought to a standstill/stop. see at least [¶063 & 082-083]).
Regarding Claim 19, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein the drive-by-wire system comprises a steer-by-wire system and/or a brake-by-wire system (The drive-by-wire system comprises a steer-by-wire system. see at least [¶072, 083 & 087]).
Regarding Claim 20, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches wherein the drive-by-wire system comprises a steer-by-wire system and/or a brake-by-wire system (The drive-by-wire system comprises a steer-by-wire system. see at least [¶072, 083 & 087]).
Regarding Claim 24, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches A data processing device for a motor vehicle, wherein the data processing device is configured to carry out a method according to claim 11 (A data processing device/electronic control device for a vehicle that carries out the method above. see at least [¶013, 065 & 085-088]).
Regarding Claim 25, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches A data processing device for a motor vehicle, wherein the data processing device is configured to carry out a method according to claim 12 (A data processing device/electronic control device for a vehicle that carries out the method above. see at least [¶013, 065 & 085-088]).
Regarding Claim 26, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches A data processing device for a motor vehicle, wherein the data processing device is configured to carry out a method according to claim 13 (A data processing device/electronic control device for a vehicle that carries out the method above. see at least [¶013, 065 & 085-088]).
Regarding Claim 27, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 as shown above, furthermore, Belling-Hoffmann teaches An automated motor vehicle, comprising the data processing device according to claim 24 (An automated/autonomous vehicle can have a data processing device/electronic control device that carries out the method above. see at least [¶013, 065 & 085-088]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
In addition, regarding the use of “and/or” in this claim, this phrasing will be interpreted as “or” and the examined limitation above will satisfy the needed requirement.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belling-Hoffmann (US 20230033322 A1) in view of Schumann ‘895 (US 20220111895 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly teach a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area.
However, Schumann ‘895 does teach a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area (In the situation where a steer-by-wire system fails, takeover of a lateral guidance of an automated/autonomous vehicle comprises steering the motor vehicle to a roadside shoulder to safely stop (this could also be considered to cover moving into a parking area). In addition, the reference also discusses attempting to use the brake to steer to follow the road curvature/path, which could be taken to mean lane keeping under broadest reasonable interpretation. see at least [¶030-031, 033-034, 036 & 043-044]).
Schumann ‘895 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alternative steering when a main steering system fails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Belling-Hoffmann to use the technique of having a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area as taught by Schumann ‘895. Doing so would lead to increased safety for vehicles with redundant steering systems (see at least [¶031]).
Regarding Claim 18, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly teach a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area.
However, Schumann ‘895 does teach a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area (In the situation where a steer-by-wire system fails, takeover of a lateral guidance of an automated/autonomous vehicle comprises steering the motor vehicle to a roadside shoulder to safely stop (this could also be considered to cover moving into a parking area). In addition, the reference also discusses attempting to use the brake to steer to follow the road curvature/path, which could be taken to mean lane keeping under broadest reasonable interpretation. see at least [¶030-031, 033-034, 036 & 043-044]).
Schumann ‘895 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alternative steering when a main steering system fails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Belling-Hoffmann to use the technique of having a takeover of the lateral guidance of the automated motor vehicle comprises lane keeping and/or steering the motor vehicle to a roadside and/or onto a parking area as taught by Schumann ‘895. Doing so would lead to increased safety for vehicles with redundant steering systems (see at least [¶031]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belling-Hoffmann (US 20230033322 A1) in view of Schumann ‘082 (US 12195082 B2).
Regarding Claim 21, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 11.
However, Schumann ‘082 does teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 11 (The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 11 (Please see rejection of claim 11 above).see at least [Column 1, Lines 6-8, Column 7, Lines 12-32 & Claims 15-21]).
Schumann ‘082 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alternative steering when a main steering system fails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Belling-Hoffmann to use the technique of providing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 11 as taught by Schumann ‘082. Doing so would lead to increased safety for vehicles with redundant steering systems (see at least [Column 3, Lines 35-50]).
Regarding Claim 22, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 12.
However, Schumann ‘082 does teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 12 (The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 12 (Please see rejection of claim 12 above).see at least [Column 1, Lines 6-8, Column 7, Lines 12-32 & Claims 15-21]).
Schumann ‘082 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alternative steering when a main steering system fails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Belling-Hoffmann to use the technique of providing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 12 as taught by Schumann ‘082. Doing so would lead to increased safety for vehicles with redundant steering systems (see at least [Column 3, Lines 35-50]).
Regarding Claim 23, Belling-Hoffmann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as shown above, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 13.
However, Schumann ‘082 does teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 13 (The non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 11 (Please see rejection of claim 11 above).see at least [Column 1, Lines 6-8, Column 7, Lines 12-32 & Claims 15-21]).
Schumann ‘082 would be in a similar field as it also deals in the area of alternative steering when a main steering system fails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Belling-Hoffmann to use the technique of providing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program comprising commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 13 as taught by Schumann ‘082. Doing so would lead to increased safety for vehicles with redundant steering systems (see at least [Column 3, Lines 35-50]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
STEER BY WIRE WITH MECHANICAL SAFETY BACKUP FOR A TRACK VEHICLE (US 20210291899 A1)
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ONE OR MORE BRAKES OF A VEHICLE (US 20220306064 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 866-2
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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
