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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 16-18 and 26-30 recite the term “and/or” in the claims. The language is stated that all combinations will work together, however, not all combinations work. For example, in claims 16 and 30, if there is one first actuating device specifying a braking request and one second actuating device specifying a steering request, then how can an acceleration request be ascertained as a function of an actuation mode of the second actuating device and carry out a steering maneuver based on the ascertained acceleration request?
Claims 17-29 ultimately depend from claim 16 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 16-18, 25-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecker et al US 2021/0129831.
Regarding claims 16 and 30, Hecker et al discloses a method for operating a motor vehicle (see claim 24), wherein the motor vehicle includes at least one first actuating device (26, 128, 124) which can be actuated by a driver for specifying a braking request and/or an acceleration request and/or steering request, wherein the motor vehicle includes at least one second actuating device (70, FBM-ECU, 124) which can be actuated by the driver for specifying a request in a normal operation that is independent of the braking request and/or the acceleration request and/or the steering request, the method comprising the following steps: monitoring the first actuating device for a malfunction; based on a malfunction of the first actuating device being identified, ascertaining the braking request and/or the acceleration request and/or the steering request as a function of an actuation duration and/or actuation force and/or actuation mode of the second actuating device; and carrying out a corresponding braking and/or acceleration and/or steering maneuver as a function of the ascertained braking requested and/or the ascertained acceleration requested and/or the ascertained steering requested. See FIG. 2 and 3, claims 24-31, and paragraphs [0119]-[0144].
Regarding claim 17, Hecker et al discloses wherein a steering device of the motor vehicle and/or a brake system of the motor vehicle and/or a drive unit of the motor vehicle are controlled as a function of the ascertained braking request and/or the ascertained acceleration request and/or the ascertained steering request. See paragraphs [0134] and [0144].
Regarding claim 18, Hecker et al discloses wherein the second actuating device is configured such that at least two different actuation modes for: (i) a braking and an acceleration request and/or (ii) a steering request to the left and to the right, can be detected or are detected. See paragraphs [0134] and [0144].
Regarding claim 25, Hecker et al discloses wherein the second actuating device includes actuating knob for actuating a parking brake, and when the actuating knob is actuated, a braking request or an acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode. See paragraphs [0134]-[0144].
Regarding claim 26, Hecker et al discloses wherein an assignment of the actuation mode to the respective request is defined as a function of an error state and/or an operating state of the at least one first and/or second actuating device. See paragraphs [0134]-[0144].
Regarding claim 27, Hecker et al discloses wherein a strength of the braking and/or acceleration and/or steering maneuver is defined as a function of an actuation force and/or a state of at least one component of the motor vehicle and/or environment information, and/or surroundings information and/or a speed of the motor vehicle. See paragraphs [0134]-[0144].
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.
Claims 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecker et al, as applied above, in view of Bozzio AG EP 3,967,539.
Regarding claim 19, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses wherein the second actuating device includes two actuating elements including paddle shifters or for setting a recuperation, which are disposed on a steering handle of the motor vehicle. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Bozzio AG in the system of Hecker et al for more efficient implementation of features for safety purposes.
Regarding claim 20, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses when both of the two actuating elements are actuated simultaneously, a braking request or acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
Regarding claim 21, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses wherein the actuating elements can both be displaced or pivoted in a first direction and in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and: (i) when both of the actuating elements are actuated simultaneously in the first direction a braking request is identified as the actuation mode and when the both of the actuation elements moved in the second direction, an acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode, or (ii) when at least one of the actuating elements is actuated in the first direction an acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode and when at least one of the actuating elements is actuated in the second direction a braking request is identified as the actuation mode. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
Regarding claim 22, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses wherein the actuating elements are disposed on the steering handle as a left actuating element and a right actuating element, and : (i) when only the left or only the right actuating element is actuated, a corresponding steering request in a respective direction is identified as the actuation mode, or (ii) when only the left actuating element is actuated, a braking request is identified as the actuation mode and when only the right actuating element is actuated an acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
Regarding claim 23, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses wherein the second actuating device includes an actuating lever, including an automatic selector lever or a gear selector lever, which can be displaced or pivoted at least in a first direction and in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and: (i) a braking request is identified as the actuation mode when the actuating lever is actuated in the first direction and an acceleration request is identified as the actuation mode when the actuating lever is actuated in the second direction, or (ii) when the actuating lever is actuated in the first direction, a steering request to the left is identified as the actuation mode, and, when the steering lever is actuated in the second direction, a steering request to the right is identified as the actuation mode. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
Regarding claim 24, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Bozzio AG discloses wherein the actuating lever can be displaced or pivoted in at least four mutually orthogonal directions, and when the actuating lever is actuated in one of the four directions, either a braking request, or an acceleration request, or a steering request to the left or a steering request to the right are identified as the actuation mode, so that each of the four directions is assigned its own request, wherein the directions: (i) for a braking and an acceleration request, and (ii) for the steering request to the left and to the right are respectively assigned opposite to one another. See FIG. 2A, 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0111] and claims 1-15.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecker et al, as applied above, in view of Toyota Motor Corp. EP 1,316,491.
Regarding claim 28, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Toyota Motor Corp. discloses wherein the braking request and/or the acceleration request and/or the steering request is identified only once an actuation duration reaches at least a specified period of time. See FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0039]-[0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Toyota Motor Corp. in the system of Hecker et al to avoid incorrect interpretations of intent for smoother operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 29, Hecker et al fails to explicitly disclose, but Toyota Motor Corp. discloses wherein the braking request and/or the acceleration request and/or the steering request is identified only once a multiple actuation of the actuating device in a specified period of time in accordance with the actuation mode has been identified. See FIG. 4 and paragraphs [0039]-[0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hitachi JP 2005/263182 discloses a vehicle control device is provided with an intention detection means for detecting driver's intention; a plurality of by-wire systems for electrically operating an actuator in response to output of the intention detection means; an abnormality detection means for detecting abnormality of the respective by- wire systems; and a complement means for complementing operation of the by-wire system in which the abnormality is detected by the abnormality detection means by operation of the other by-wire system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J DALLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4844. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-7pm ET M-Th.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOSEPH J DALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights