DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 9/18/2025. Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the process by the control device is to further…activates the proposed driver assistance system”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “activate…” so that the proper tense is used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-7, the claims recite “A driver assistance method” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
A driver assistance method by a control device of a motor vehicle comprising:
by the control device configured to execute a process to
receive surroundings data, which describe a current travel situation in a region around the motor vehicle,
on basis of the surroundings data, provide a vehicle surroundings model, which describes the current travel situation and surroundings of the motor vehicle,
check whether at least one driver assistance system among driver assistance systems of the motor vehicle meets an assistance criterion which specifies a minimum probability with which the at least one driver assistance system will assist a driver of the motor vehicle in the current travel situation and in the surroundings of the motor vehicle,
if the at least one driver assistance system meets the assistance criterion,
generate an information display signal, which describes a digital representation of a proposal to use the at least one driver assistance system as a proposed driver assistance system, and
transmit the information display signal to a display device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “check...” and “if the at least one driver assistance system…” in the contexts of this claim encompass evaluating a driver assistance system’s effectiveness, which can practically be performed in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least abstract one idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A driver assistance method by a control device of a motor vehicle comprising:
by the control device configured to execute a process to
receive surroundings data, which describe a current travel situation in a region around the motor vehicle,
on basis of the surroundings data, provide a vehicle surroundings model, which describes the current travel situation and surroundings of the motor vehicle,
check whether at least one driver assistance system among driver assistance systems of the motor vehicle meets an assistance criterion which specifies a minimum probability with which the at least one driver assistance system will assist a driver of the motor vehicle in the current travel situation and in the surroundings of the motor vehicle,
if the at least one driver assistance system meets the assistance criterion,
generate an information display signal, which describes a digital representation of a proposal to use the at least one driver assistance system as a proposed driver assistance system, and
transmit the information display signal to a display device.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “by a control device of a motor vehicle” and “by the control device configured to execute a process to”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “control device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The component(s) merely automate(s) the functional step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “receive surroundings data, which describe a current travel situation in a region around the motor vehicle, on basis of the surroundings data, provide a vehicle surroundings model, which describes the current travel situation and surroundings of the motor vehicle” and “generate an information display signal, which describes a digital representation of a proposal to use the at least one driver assistance system as a proposed driver assistance system, and transmit the information display signal to a display device”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies] that merely use a computer (“control device”), which is recited at a high level of generality, to perform a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. In particular, the “receive surroundings data…” amounts to mere data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation(s) “…provide a vehicle surroundings model” amount(s) to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “display device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and the limitations “generate an information display signal…” and “transmit the information display signal to a display device” amount to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of the “by a control device of a motor vehicle” and “by the control device configured to execute a process to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and does not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “receive surroundings data…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the receiving of data is anything other than receiving sensor data from well-understood vehicle sensors or conventional V2E methods [0013]. The additional limitation(s) of “provide a vehicle surroundings model…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the providing of the model is anything other than retrieving the model from a well-understood vehicle memory [0059]. The additional limitation(s) of “generate an information display signal…” and “transmit the information display signal to a display device” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the display is anything other than a well-understood vehicle display [0056] and that the generating of the display signal is anything other than a conventional signal generation process [0059].
See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 8-9, the claim(s) recite(s) “A control device” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 8 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “at least one processor configured to execute a process to”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 10-11, the claim(s) recite(s) “A motor vehicle” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 10 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in the independent claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “a control device including at least one processor configured to execute a process to”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation(s) merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose environment, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate(s) the functional step(s) of the claim. Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) amount(s) to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9, 11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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 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 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.
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) 1-2, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20220118993 A1) in view of Kuehne (US 20210188088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 10, Schneider teaches A driver assistance method by a control device of a motor vehicle (“A driver assistance system 100 according to the invention, as shown in FIG. 1, comprises a controller 120 that is connected to a surroundings sensor system 110. The driver assistance system 100 is installed in an ego vehicle”, [0025], “The aspects described here with reference to the driver assistance system apply analogously to the disclosed method, which may be implemented for example by the controller…The method is implemented in particular within the motor vehicle in hardware or software or else a combination of hardware and software. The hardware comprises in particular digital signal processors, application-specific integrated circuits, field-programmable gate arrays and other suitable switching and computing components.”, [0021]) comprising:
by the control device configured to execute a process to
receive surroundings data, which describe a current travel situation in a region around the motor vehicle (“The surroundings sensor system 110 of the automated chassis adjustment system comprises at least a camera and a satellite-assisted absolute position sensor. The camera provides image data for the chassis adjustment system.”, [0036]),
on basis of the surroundings data, provide a vehicle surroundings model, which describes the current travel situation and surroundings of the motor vehicle (“A controller 120 of the chassis adjustment system evaluates the image data from the camera with regard to road unevennesses ahead and automatically adjusts the chassis for improved driving comfort. Using an optical model, the controller 120 ascertains road unevennesses and the position thereof with respect to the vehicle from the image data.”, [0036]),
check whether at least one driver assistance system among driver assistance systems of the motor vehicle meets an assistance criterion which specifies a minimum probability with which the at least one driver assistance system will assist a driver of the motor vehicle in the current travel situation and in the surroundings of the motor vehicle (“The assessment module 160 is implemented on the controller 120 or in a further controller of the chassis adjustment system and records reference information by retrieving vehicle response data, such as data from a driving dynamics sensor 170, for example accelerations in the x, y and z direction, wheel speeds or wheel slip. The assessment module 160 uses a predefined assessment rule to ascertain a success value for the automated chassis adjustment from the vehicle response data, that is to say an indicator as to how well the unevenness was compensated for.”, [0037]),
if the at least one driver assistance system meets the assistance criterion,
generate an information display signal, (“the assessment module 160 outputs a query to the user of the assistance system via the user interface 130 in which said user is able to assess whether he was satisfied with the assistance functionality in the current situation.”, [0038]), and
transmit the information display signal to a display device (see “the assessment module 160 outputs a query to the user of the assistance system via the user interface 130”, [0038] citation above).
Further, Kuehne teaches
if the at least one driver assistance system meets the assistance criterion,
generate an information display signal, which describes a digital representation of a proposal to use the at least one driver assistance system as a proposed driver assistance system (“a driver assistance system used for automatic control of a vehicle. A future driving maneuver of the driver assistance system is displayed here by use of a display device in the vehicle.”, [0006]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schneider with the teachings of Kuehne such that if the at least one driver assistance system of Kuehne meets the assistance criterion, the control device is further configured to generate an information display signal descriptive of a proposed driver assistance system, as suggested by Kuehne, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user experience by relaying future vehicle control information to a user to possibly avoid motion sickness, as suggested by Kuehne [0003].
Regarding claim 2, Schneider in view of Kuehne teaches The driver assistance method according to Claim 1, and Kuehne further teaches wherein the digital representation describes a digital animation of at least one graphic element, among graphic elements, including an avatar (“It is also possible that the display device is used for work, so that, for example, a virtual work environment is displayed, within which the vehicle occupant can interact with further persons, who are either seated in the same vehicle or, for example, are also wearing virtual reality glasses at an entirely different location. It is thus possible by use of the display device to interact with greatly varying persons within the displayed virtual environment, for example in that avatars of the further persons are displayed within the virtual environment. Because in addition at least the virtual representation of the route layout located in front of the motor vehicle can also be displayed by use of the display device within the virtual environment, it is possible to avoid the user of the display device feeling sick during the journey with the motor vehicle, i.e. kinetosis occurring, for example in the form of simulator sickness.”, [0020]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Schneider with the teachings of Kuehne such that the digital representation of Kuehne describes a digital animation of an avatar, among graphic elements, as suggested by Kuehne, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that “the vehicle occupant can interact with further persons” [0020], as taught by Kuehne.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20220118993 A1) in view of Kuehne (US 20210188088 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 20210178845 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Schneider in view of Kuehne teaches The driver assistance method according to claim 1, wherein the process by the control device is to further:
However, Cho teaches
classify the current travel situation on basis of the vehicle surroundings model into at least one driving scenario among multiple driving scenarios, and select the proposed driver assistance system on basis of the at least one driving scenario (“The ECS control apparatus 50 may detect a front obstacle while driving at S702. For example, the ECS control apparatus 50 may detect whether an obstacle exist using means such as a radar, a lidar, a camera, or the like. The ECS control apparatus 50 may identify whether there is a road surface classification model stored corresponding to the detected obstacle at S703.”, [0134-0135], “The ECS control apparatus 50 may determine and set an ECS control value based on a characteristic value corresponding to the corresponding road surface classification model and then enter the obstacle at S705.”, [0137]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schneider in view of Kuehne with the teachings of Cho such that the control device of Kuehne is further configured to select the proposed driver assistance system on a basis of the driving scenario, as suggested by Cho, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to control the vehicle “based on a characteristic value corresponding to a corresponding road surface classification model when detecting an obstacle to improve a riding comfort” [0002], as taught by Cho.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20220118993 A1) in view of Kuehne (US 20210188088 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 20240001930 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schneider in view of Kuehne teaches The driver assistance method according to claim 1,
However, Hu teaches
wherein the control device generates the information display signal if the vehicle surroundings model describes that the current travel situation will be maintained over a minimum period of time (“As shown in FIG. 9, an intelligent driving system 70 includes an obtaining module 71, a determining module 72, a display module 73, and a control module 74. The obtaining module 71 is configured to obtain feature parameters of a vehicle at a first time and a road attribute of a driving scenario of the vehicle in a preset future time period after the first time, where the feature parameters include structured semantic information, a road attribute, and a traffic status spectrum. The determining module 72 is configured to select a first driving scenario class in a scenario feature library based on the feature parameters of the vehicle at the first time and the road attribute of the driving scenario of the vehicle in the preset future time period. The display module 73 is configured to: display a first prompt, where the first prompt is used to indicate a driver that a driving scenario of the vehicle at the first time is switched to the first driving scenario class, and receive a first instruction, where the first instruction corresponds to the first indicator, and is used to instruct to switch from the driving scenario of the vehicle at the first time to the first scenario class. The control module 74 is configured to control a driving status of the vehicle based on the first driving class.”, [0170], “The preset future time period may be a time period after the current moment, and the time period may be set as required. This is not limited. For example, when the driving route of the user for this time is from a place A to a place E passing through places B, C, and D, if the vehicle is currently positioned at the place B, the preset future time period is set to two hours after which the vehicle may drive to the place C, and it is determined, by referring to the high-precision map, that from the place B to the place C, there is a section of a highway that needs to be crossed, it may be determined that the road attribute of the driving scenario of the vehicle in the preset future time period is: a highway.”, [0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schneider in view of Kuehne with the teachings of Hu such that the control device of Kuehne is further configured to generate the information display signal if the current travel situation will be maintained over a minimum period of time, as suggested by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to only present the information display signal if the travel situation is occurring over a specific time period, as suggested by Hu [0058].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20220118993 A1) in view of Kuehne (US 20210188088 A1) in view of Dieckmann et al. (US 20210163000 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider in view of Kuehne teaches The driver assistance method according to claim 1, wherein the process by the control device is to further:
However, Dieckmann teaches
receive an operating signal, which describes a user input by a user of the motor vehicle to activate the proposed driver assistance system, and
activates the proposed driver assistance system depending on the operating signal received (“As soon the ACC control unit 10 thus recognizes that the required criteria K1 to K5 and possibly further criteria are met, it suggests, according to branch y in step St3, the ACC-P mode ACC-P, by outputting a query signal or display signal S4 at a display unit 22, for example, in the dashboard region of the driver. If the driver, in step St4 according to branch y, confirms this display by a confirmation signal S5, for example, by pressing a corresponding actuating unit 23 or a pushbutton, the ACC control unit 10 will subsequently set the ACC-P mode ACC-P upon receiving the confirmation signal S5 according to step St5 and for this purpose will correspondingly output request signals S2, S3 to the engine control unit 12 and to the brake control unit 14.”, [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schneider in view of Kuehne with the teachings of Dieckmann such that the control device of Kuehne is further configured to activate the proposed driver assistance system based on a user input by a user of the motor vehicle, as suggested by Dieckmann, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to improve user experience by allowing the user to confirm the use of the proposed system, as suggested by Dieckmann [0028].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20220118993 A1) in view of Kuehne (US 20210188088 A1) in view of Kamata (US 20170171375 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider in view of Kuehne teaches The driver assistance method according to claim 1,
However, Kamata teaches
wherein the digital representation describes a digital logbook or a part of the digital logbook. (“An alternative display mode is shown in FIGS. 5A-5B. In the screen 708 shown in FIG. 5A, the system may display an automation selection bar or menu 730 as previously described, enabling the occupant to select an available level of automation. The screen 708 also indicates all available levels of automation and the current level of automation. In addition, the system may be configured to indicate or recite (for example, visually through display 708 and also via audio) a list of the vehicle automated systems and/or the associated automated capabilities relating to a selected level of automation.”, [0052]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Schneider in view of Kuehne with the teachings of Kamata such that the digital representation of Kuehne describes a digital logbook, as suggested by Kamata, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “illustrate[] for the occupant the vehicle capabilities associated with the level of automation” [0053], as taught by Kamata.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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 the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights