DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 9/2/2025.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Each of Claims 1 and 8 recites the limitation "dynamically updating the modality configurations and the modality values," and Claim 15 recites “dynamically updating the per-segment modality values.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations, as in each case the claim previously recites a computation of a singular modality value. Therefore these independent claims, and by extension the dependent claims, are indefinite as there is no previous recitation of a plurality of modality values which can then be updated.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijaya Kumar, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0355377 (“Vijaya”), in view of Gardner, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2005/0256635 (“Gardner”).
With regard to Claim 1, Vijaya teaches a system for controlling modalities for vehicle navigation, comprising:
a navigation system configured to transmit navigation data and communicate the navigation data in a vehicle via a plurality of modalities ([0223]-[0225], a system adapts safety and navigation settings to a user, including timing and manner by which alerts are provided. [0234] describes adapting modalities based on driver state, and [0237] describes that a navigation mode can be adjusted to provide haptic or visual alerts);
one or more sensors configured to provide data associated with driving condition data comprising contextual data characterizing a surrounding of the vehicle and at least one of (i) sensor data associated with a vehicle interior environment, and (ii) sensor data associated with a physiological state of a driver ([0036] describes world-facing sensors that sense characteristics about an environment surrounding the vehicle. [0229] describes that vehicle sensors associated with the interior of the vehicle can be used to detect driver characteristics such as drowsiness, fatigue, or anxiety); and
a processor, operatively coupled to the one or more sensors and navigation system, wherein the processor comprises a modality selector logic configured to dynamically calculate and adjust modality configurations based on the sensor data and driving condition data ([0234] describes that alert modalities and intensities can be adapted based on the estimated driver state, which is ascertained using the sensor data from inside the vehicle as described at [0229]-[0230]. [0188]-[0190] describe that various driver states are calculated using context data as well, where [0167]-[0178] describe context data includes road conditions, traffic and travelling speeds), and wherein the processor is further configured to:
dynamically update modality configurations and modality values during navigation based on real-time changes in sensor data and driving condition data; and select, for each navigational path segment, a modality configuration for the navigation data based on the modality value computed for the respective navigational path segment ([0229] describes that context data is used to determine present driving fitness, where [0167]-[0182] describe that relevant context includes time, weather, road type, conditions, traffic, etc., and that the module determines relationships between conditions and performance in order to provide accurate determinations of a driver’s fitness to drive. [0237] describes that the settings for driver alerts can be modified in real time to select the various configurations of the modalities by which information is delivered to the driver. [0194] describes that the fitness to drive is represented by a single score or level calculated using the various inputs).
Vijaya does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: process contextual familiarity data and maneuver complexity data, each processed for respective navigational path segments of a selected route, to determine one or more modality configurations that minimize driver cognitive load; compute, for each respective navigational path segment, a modality value as a joint function of the segment's contextual familiarity data, maneuver complexity data, and current lane data; and dynamically update the modality values.
Gardner teaches at [0060] that the system assesses a driver cognitive load, in part by analyzing the complexity of current driving maneuvers for a road segment being driven upon. This analysis can include current lane data, such as the presence of traffic in the travel lanes, the type of lane such as straight highway, etc. [0038] describes that the system also collects driver familiarity data regarding a segment of road and designates segments as familiar to a driver. [0063]-[0064] describe that the system computes a level of urgency using the familiarity data, and then the driver state as described at [0060] is used to increase or decrease the computed level of urgency. [0065]-[0066] describe that the level of urgency calculated dynamically for each navigation cue, and that the tone, length, volume, complexity, and visual presentation of the cue can all be adjusted based on the dynamically computed level of urgency for the particular navigation cue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Vijaya to include additional factors for computing a value that is used to determine navigational alert modality configurations as described in Gardner. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system functioning by using a more comprehensive set of data in the determination, thereby improving the ability of the system to present navigation assistance in a manner of maximal utility to drivers.
Claim 8 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 15 recites another method which is carried out by the system of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Vijaya teaches that the vehicle interior environment comprises audio sensor data, and/or image sensor data associated with the vehicle interior. [0229] describes that the vehicle sensors can include a camera detecting driver characteristics.
Claim 9 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites another method which is carried out by the system of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, Vijaya teaches that the physiological state of the driver comprises at least one of physiological sensor data, image sensor data and/or audio sensor data. [0229] describes that the camera can be used to detect whether a user is fatigued, drowsy, or anxious.
Claim 10 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites another method which is carried out by the system of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Vijaya teaches that the driving condition data comprises vehicle- to-everything (V2X) or vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) data. [0142] describes that input sources can include local and remote devices, where [0167]-[0178] describe various inputs about driving conditions. [0060]-[0061] describe receiving data from remote sources by V2V and V2I protocols.
Claim 11 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 5, Vijaya teaches that the driving condition data comprises at least one of maneuver complexity level data, current lane data, and/or context familiarity data. [0257]-[0258] describes that a lane departure warning can be determined using an observed lane width.
Claim 12 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 6, Gardner teaches that the context familiarity data comprises a route familiarity value representing a driver's familiarity with one or more navigational route segments. [0038] describes that the familiarity data is determined for a particular route or segment of road.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Gardner with Vijaya. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional navigation system adaptations that better serve the user’s needs.
Claim 13 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijaya, in view of Gardner, and in view of Diaz, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0076903 (“Diaz”).
With regard to Claim 7, Diaz teaches that the route familiarity value is calculated as a function of total previous route visits, previous route segment visits and total previous route visits for a selected path in the navigation system. [0027] describes that familiarity with an area can be determined based on a number of user visits over a period of time. [0029] describes that familiarity with a particular route can then be determined when routes pass through areas that users have visited, where [0021] describes that geographic areas can be considered as a particular road or city block.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Diaz with Vijaya and Gardner. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by ensuring that driver familiarity determinations more precisely capture familiarity with particular routes, segments, and geographic areas.
Claim 14 recites a method which is carried out by the system of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites another method which is carried out by the system of Claim 7, and is likewise rejected.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijaya, in view of Gardner, and in view of Huang, U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0049267 (“Huang”).
With regard to Claim 20, Vijaya, in view of Huang teaches dynamically adjusting, via the processor, thresholds for activating and/or deactivating one or more modalities in the navigation system, wherein the adjustment is based on a comparison of current lane data, processed by a current lane logic, with maneuver complexity data, processed by a maneuver complexity logic, to adapt the navigation modalities to current driving conditions.
Vijaya teaches at [0234] that the system alters alert modalities and intensities based on an estimated driver state, where [0230] describes states of drowsiness, fatigue, and anxiety. Huang teaches at [0038] that safety actions, such as additional audio output or warnings, can be made based on real time determined driver behavior and road conditions. [0039] describes that safety actions can be triggered in response to a driver being determined as tired, where a determined stress/drowsiness level required to trigger a particular safety action can vary depending on driving conditions such as traffic, a winding road, or rain.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Huang with Vijaya and Gardner. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by accounting for additional factors that can better adapt additional warning modalities to the specific conditions experienced by a user.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vijaya, in view of Gardner, and in view of Oommen, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0402891 (“Oommen”).
With regard to Claim 21, Oommen teaches modifying navigation modalities based on detected passenger states, comprising sleeping or conversational activity, to reduce disruption during navigation. [0051] describes that an automobile includes an audio playback and navigation system. [0056] describes that audio volume, cabin lights, and stimulation can be altered in response to detecting that a passenger is drowsy to enhance sleeping conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Oommen with Vijaya and Gardner. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional modifications to modalities that better adapt cabin conditions to the states of the vehicle occupants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, as the newly cited Gardner reference cures any deficiencies with regard to the previously cited references teaching or suggesting the elements of the amended independent claims.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
10/24/2025