CTNF 19/105,647 CTNF 90378 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Claims 1-13 were cancelled and claims 14-26 were added prior to examination. Accordingly, claims 14-26 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits. Key to Interpreting this Office Action For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 17 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. In regards to claim 17: Applicant claims 17. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein: (i) a driving mode according to SAE level 3 (automated) or level 4 (highly automated) or level 5 (fully automated) is activated, and the driving mode can only be deactivated again or is deactivated, when the malfunction is identified as having been resolved, and/or (ii) control over the actuating device having the malfunction and/or another actuating device, is taken away from the driver. Claim 17 provides a plurality of optional driving modes combined with a plurality of optional driving mode activation/deactivation scenarios using a plurality of “and/or” limitations between the driving mode activation/deactivation scenarios. This generates confusion and indefiniteness as to the metes and bounds of the claim. Corrective action or clarification is required. Further, Applicant claims the driving mode can only be deactivated again or is deactivated, when which is indefinite because it is unclear when the driving mode was deactivated the first time. Further, control over the actuating device… is taken away from the driver is unclear and indefinite as to what metes and bounds of “taking away control” means in combination with deactivation of the driving modes, as these limitations appear incompatible together. Corrective action or clarification is required. Any and all dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-fti 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 pre-AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belling-Hoffmann et al. (US 20230033322 A1) herein Belling-Hoffmann, in view of Jang et al. (US 20230391369 A1) herein Jang . In regards to Claim 14, Belling-Hoffmann discloses the following: 14. (New) A method for operating a motor vehicle, (see at least Abstract, [0011] “vehicle”) the motor vehicle including at least one actuating device which can be actuated by a driver for specifying a braking and/or acceleration and/or steering request, (see at least [0070] “steering wheel 2”) wherein the actuating device is assigned at least one first sensor for detecting an actuation of the actuating device, (see at least [0070] “nominal movement direction signal 1 is generated, e.g., by a steering wheel angle sensor or a steering wheel moment sensor 4”) the method comprising the following steps: monitoring the actuating device and/or the first sensor for a malfunction; (see at least [0077] “malfunction signal 22 is generated which characterizes a malfunction of the electric steering device”, see also [0077]-[0082] “malfunction signal 22”) and based on detecting a malfunction of the actuating device and/or the first sensor, activating an at least partially autonomous driving mode of the motor vehicle (see at least [0081] “malfunction signal 22 can be any signal that characterizes a malfunction of the electric steering device, in particular a warning signal which controls… a control signal which controls any piece of equipment in the vehicle in order to perform, e.g., at least one safety measure, which either compensates the malfunction of the electric steering device or reduces or eliminates the influence of the electric steering device upon the steering of the vehicle.”, [0083] “safety measure may be performed as an automatic braking of the vehicle to a stop”, see also [0088], same) and carrying out at least one autonomous driving maneuver as a function of a value of at least one specified parameter assigned or assignable to the motor vehicle. (see at least [0083] “safety measure may be performed as an automatic braking of the vehicle to a stop”, see also [0088], same) It is the position of the Office that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an autonomous driving maneuver includes any function that is not controlled by the driver. Accordingly, the automatic braking maneuver of Belling-Hoffmann fully discloses this limitation. However, while an number of parameters would be necessary (and therefore inherent) to this automatic braking, it is noted that Belling-Hoffmann is silent with regards to the parameters used during the automatic braking. Therefore, this is more explicitly taught by Jang. (see at least Fig. 3, steps S120-S140 and [0057] “specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100”, and [0051]-[0056] “minimum risk maneuver (MRM)”, [0076] “minimal risk maneuver may include stopping the vehicle, controlling the steering of the vehicle, maintaining a lane… decelerating the vehicle, accelerating the vehicle, initiating/ending autonomous driving… and remote control.” and [0082] “the vehicle 100 can stop within the boundary of the current lane by recognizing the current lane by using the sensor 110 and by controlling the steering of the vehicle 100 along the current lane by using a steering function.”, see also other embodiments of minimal risk maneuvers detailed in Figures 4-8, and associated parameters.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 15, Belling-Hoffmann suggests the following: 15. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein the actuating device is assigned at least one second sensor for redundantly detecting the actuation, and wherein sensor signals from the first and the second sensors are monitored for a malfunction, by comparing them with one another. (see at least [0010] “The electric steering device can be monitored, e.g., by redundant steering wheel angle sensors whose signals are then plausibility checked in redundant micro controllers which monitor each other. Providing redundant components in the steering device in order to perform error detection”) However, it is noted that this disclosure of Belling-Hoffmann is described in the background, and not explicitly part of the embodiments disclosed in Belling-Hoffmann. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the redundant sensor and microcontrollers with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing two techniques of monitoring different parts of the steering chain, and therefore provide complementary fault coverage. One of ordinary skill would have understood that using both together would improve confidence that the system can detect not only input-sensor faults, but also failures where a seemingly valid steering command is not correctly implemented by the steering device. (per Belling-Hoffmann technique of [0046]) In regards to Claim 16, Belling-Hoffmann discloses the following: 16. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein a steering device and/or a brake system and/or a drive unit of the motor vehicle is controlled as a function of an actuation of the actuating device. (see at least [0083] “safety measure may be performed as an automatic braking of the vehicle to a stop”, see also [0088], same) In regards to Claim 17, as best understood, Belling-Hoffmann discloses the following: 17. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein: (i) a driving mode according to SAE level 3 (automated) or level 4 (highly automated) or level 5 (fully automated) is activated, (see at least [0059] “Level 3 systems…”, “In level 4 the system…” and “Level 5 differs from level 4…”) As best understood, Belling-Hoffmann is silent, but Jang teaches the following: and the driving mode can only be deactivated again or is deactivated, when the malfunction is identified as having been resolved, and/or (ii) control over the actuating device having the malfunction and/or another actuating device, is taken away from the driver. (see at least [0157] “when a low-level MRM type is determined due to a temporary defect or the like and the defect is repaired while performing the MRM, the MRM type may be changed to a higher-level MRM type”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 18, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 18. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein the parameter includes a severity and/or a type of malfunction. (see at least [0212] “vehicle 100 may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the determined state of the vehicle 100. For example, based on at least one of the number of failed parts of the vehicle 100 (i.e., failed components and failed functions), the position of the failed parts, and the type of the failed parts, the vehicle 100 may calculate the severity of the current state of the vehicle 100, and may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the calculated severity.”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 19, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 19. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein an error state of at least one further component of the motor vehicle is monitored, and the parameter includes the error state. (see at least [0212] “vehicle 100 may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the determined state of the vehicle 100. For example, based on at least one of the number of failed parts of the vehicle 100 (i.e., failed components and failed functions), the position of the failed parts, and the type of the failed parts, the vehicle 100 may calculate the severity of the current state of the vehicle 100, and may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the calculated severity.”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 20, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 20. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein location information of the motor vehicle is acquired, and the parameter includes the location information. (see at least Fig. 3, steps S120-S140 and [0057] “specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100”, and [0051]-[0056] “minimum risk maneuver (MRM)”, [0076] “minimal risk maneuver may include stopping the vehicle, controlling the steering of the vehicle, maintaining a lane… decelerating the vehicle, accelerating the vehicle, initiating/ending autonomous driving… and remote control.” and [0082] “the vehicle 100 can stop within the boundary of the current lane by recognizing the current lane by using the sensor 110 and by controlling the steering of the vehicle 100 along the current lane by using a steering function.”, see also other embodiments of minimal risk maneuvers detailed in Figures 4-8, and associated parameters.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 21, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 21. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein environment information and/or surroundings information of the motor vehicle is acquired and the parameter includes the environment information and/or the surroundings information. (see at least Fig. 3, steps S120-S140 and [0057] “specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100”, and [0051]-[0056] “minimum risk maneuver (MRM)”, [0076] “minimal risk maneuver may include stopping the vehicle, controlling the steering of the vehicle, maintaining a lane… decelerating the vehicle, accelerating the vehicle, initiating/ending autonomous driving… and remote control.” and [0082] “the vehicle 100 can stop within the boundary of the current lane by recognizing the current lane by using the sensor 110 and by controlling the steering of the vehicle 100 along the current lane by using a steering function.”, see also other embodiments of minimal risk maneuvers detailed in Figures 4-8, and associated parameters.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 22, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 22. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein the parameter includes a setting of a vehicle assistance system of the motor vehicle. (see at least Fig. 3, steps S120-S140 and [0057] “specific event may include failure of components of the vehicle 100”, and [0051]-[0056] “minimum risk maneuver (MRM)”, [0076] “minimal risk maneuver may include stopping the vehicle, controlling the steering of the vehicle, maintaining a lane… decelerating the vehicle, accelerating the vehicle, initiating/ending autonomous driving… and remote control.” and [0082] “the vehicle 100 can stop within the boundary of the current lane by recognizing the current lane by using the sensor 110 and by controlling the steering of the vehicle 100 along the current lane by using a steering function.”, see also other embodiments of minimal risk maneuvers detailed in Figures 4-8, and associated parameters.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 23, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 23. (New) The method according to claim 14, wherein at least one destination for the motor vehicle is specified or retrieved, and that the parameter includes the at least one of the destinations. (see at least [0203] “vehicle 100 may determine whether or not there is a safety zone located in the vicinity of the current position of the vehicle 100 based on the navigation information”, see also [0204]-[0205] “safety zone” and [0206] “vehicle 100 determines that there is a safety zone, and travels to the common safety zone and stops.”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 24, Belling-Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the following, which is better taught by Jang: 24. (New) The method according to claim 18, wherein a suitable destination is selected from a plurality of destinations as a function of: (i) the severity and/or type of malfunction, and/or (ii) an error state, and/or (iii) location information, and/or (iv) environment information, and/or (v) surroundings information and/or (vi) a setting of the vehicle assistance system, and a plurality of autonomous driving maneuvers are carried out to reach the selected destination. (see at least [0212] “vehicle 100 may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the determined state of the vehicle 100. For example, based on at least one of the number of failed parts of the vehicle 100 (i.e., failed components and failed functions), the position of the failed parts, and the type of the failed parts, the vehicle 100 may calculate the severity of the current state of the vehicle 100, and may determine whether to perform the minimal risk maneuver based on the calculated severity.”) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Jang with the invention of Belling-Hoffmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing an appropriate response to an unexpected accident or event that may put the vehicle at risk. (Jang, [0003]-[0004]) In regards to Claim 25: Claim 25 is the control device for operating a motor vehicle performing the method of claim 14, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 14, above. In regards to Claim 26: Claim 26 is the motor vehicle performing the method of claim 14, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 14, above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV , or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner. Sincerely, /JASON R ROBERSON/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 March 30, 2026 /NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 2 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 3 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 4 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 5 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 6 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 7 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 8 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 9 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 10 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 11 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 12 Art Unit: 3669 Application/Control Number: 19/105,647 Page 13 Art Unit: 3669
Prosecution Insights