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 office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 09/08/2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 14, 16-17, and 20 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng CN 115123109 A (the examiner is providing an English translation and relying upon, hence Zheng).
In re claim 1, Zheng discloses a vehicle control method and a vehicle (Abstract) and teaches the following:
detecting an action of an operating member disposed on a steering wheel of a driving object; in response to the action of the operating member, generating a driving control instruction; and controlling the driving object to execute or exit a target driving mode according to the driving control instruction, wherein the target driving mode comprises a general driving mode in which a driver of the driving object has full control of the driving object and an intelligent driving mode wherein the generating the driving control instruction in response to the action of the operating member comprises: in response to that the action is a first action and the intelligent driving mode is inactivated, generating an entry instruction to enter a first intelligent driving mode; in response to that the action is the first action and the intelligent driving mode is activated, generating an exit instruction to exit the intelligent driving mode; in response to that the action is a second action and the intelligent driving mode is inactivated, generating an entry instruction to enter a second intelligent driving mode or a third intelligent driving mode, wherein a priority of the second intelligent driving mode is higher than a priority of the third intelligent driving mode, and the priority of the third intelligent driving mode is higher than a priority of the first intelligent driving mode; in response to that the action is the second action and the intelligent driving mode is activated, generating a mode switching instruction to switch to the first intelligent driving mode; and in response to that the action is a third action, generating an entry instruction to enter the general driving mode, wherein the first action, the second action, and the third action are different actions of the operating member disposed on the steering wheel (lines 39-40 “preset button group set on the steering wheel”, lines 42-46 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the regular driving mode to the intelligent driving mode” and lines 162-167 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode”)
In re claim 2, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the action of the operating member comprises at least one of toggling, pressing, sliding, or rotating the operating member (line 166 “switch button”, and lines 169-171 “the preset switch button 12 is mainly used to control one-key switching between the normal driving mode and the intelligent driving mode, that is, in the normal driving mode When the preset switch button 12 is triggered (for example, triggered by pressing, touching, sliding, scrolling, etc.)”)
In re claim 3, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the driving control instruction is implemented by a number of toggles, a number of presses, a curve of a slide, a length of a slide, or an angle of rotation of the operating member (line 166 “switch button”)
In re claim 7, Zheng teaches the following:
in response to that the driving control instruction is an entry instruction to enter the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to activate the target driving mode (lines 162-163 “control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode,”);
in response to that the driving control instruction is a mode switching instruction to switch to the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to exit the intelligent driving mode before controlling the driving object to activate the target driving mode (lines 202-204 “Receive the second mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the intelligent driving mode to the normal driving mode”);
and in response to that the driving control instruction is an exit instruction to exit the target driving mode, controlling the driving object to exit the target driving mode (lines 202-204 “Receive the second mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the intelligent driving mode to the normal driving mode”)
In re claim 10, Zheng teaches the following:
switching an indication mode based on an indication mode corresponding to the driving control instruction or an indication mode corresponding to an indicator light at the target driving mode, and different indication modes indicate different pieces of driving information (Fig.4 and lines 137-142)
In re claim 11, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the indication mode comprise at least one of a color, an identification, a flashing frequency, a brightness, or a progress bar (Fig.4 and lines 137-142)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng.
In re claim 5, Zheng discloses the claimed invention as recited above including a plurality of actions (Page), the number of times the sub-button is pressed (Page 5, line 267) and a time interval (Page 5, lines 274), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the first action is toggling or pressing the operating member once for a first duration, the second action is toggling or pressing the operating member a plurality of times with a time interval between two adjacent ones of the plurality of times being less than a preset time, and the third action is toggling or pressing the operating member once for a second duration longer than the first duration
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to assign a specific number of button presses and a specific duration of button pressing times to different actions, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any configuration based on number of times a button is pressed and any configuration based on a duration of pressing time.
In re claim 6, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the first intelligent driving mode is Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) mode (Page 4, lines 218-219 “ integrated preset switch button 12 on the steering wheel 1, the intelligent driving mode can be fully turned in with one key including but not limited to self-adaptive cruise”)
However, Zheng doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
the second intelligent driving mode is Di Navigation Pilot (DNP) mode, and the third intelligent driving mode is Intelligent Cruise Control (ICC) mode
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to assign different functions to the preset switch button 12, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed configuration solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well because Zheng discloses that the preset switch button 12 can turn on multiple modes and reducing the number of buttons on the steering wheel makes the button operation more simple and efficient, saving development costs and improving product competitiveness (Zheng, Page 4, lines 228-231).
In re claim 8, Zheng teaches the following:
wherein the driving object is a vehicle, and controlling the vehicle to activate the ACC mode comprises: acquiring a current vehicle speed of the vehicle; in response to that the current vehicle speed is less than a cruise speed, controlling the vehicle to travel at the cruise speed; and in response to that the current vehicle speed is greater than or equal to the cruise speed, controlling the vehicle to travel at the current vehicle speed (Page 4, line 219 “self-adaptive cruise” what is recited in claim 8 is the definition of cruise control)
In re claim 9, Zheng teaches the following:
after controlling the vehicle to exit a first ACC mode, in response to receiving restart information of the intelligent driving mode, controlling the vehicle to activate a second ACC mode and to travel at a cruise speed of the first ACC mode (Page 4, line 219 “self-adaptive cruise” resume function of the ACC mode)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 14-17 and 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 07/14/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/14/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Zheng have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. Accordingly, with respect to claim 1, only one contingent limitation need to be satisfied in order to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Zheng discloses in lines 42-46 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the regular driving mode to the intelligent driving mode” and lines 162-167 “Receive the first mode switching instruction, control the vehicle to switch from the conventional driving mode to the intelligent driving mode”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
