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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/28/2025. Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination. Objections to the specification and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
“…[W]hile Toyoda appears to blend manual and autonomous inputs, it does not implement an autonomous driving maneuver, detect driver intervention via applied torque, determine a preferred rate of rotation from the applied torque, and then use that preferred rate of rotation in subsequent autonomous operations.”
“…[T]he steering assist system of Ito may associate the torque needed to rotate a steering wheel a discrete amount, and may provide additional rotational assistance to match expected rates of rotation based on the associations of torque and rotation, but, this is different from the present claims that measure an amount of torque applied by the driver during an autonomous driving maneuver and then adjust to a preferred rotation rate, implemented during an autonomous driving mode, from a measured rotation rate.”
“…[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Toyoda and Ito…Toyoda and Ito attempt to solve different, unrelated problems in two different driving contexts (e.g., autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles).”
Applicant's arguments A.-C. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments A. “…[W]hile Toyoda appears to blend manual and autonomous inputs, it does not implement an autonomous driving maneuver, detect driver intervention via applied torque, determine a preferred rate of rotation from the applied torque, and then use that preferred rate of rotation in subsequent autonomous operations” and B. “…[T]he steering assist system of Ito may associate the torque needed to rotate a steering wheel a discrete amount, and may provide additional rotational assistance to match expected rates of rotation based on the associations of torque and rotation, but, this is different from the present claims that measure an amount of torque applied by the driver during an autonomous driving maneuver and then adjust to a preferred rotation rate, implemented during an autonomous driving mode, from a measured rotation rate,” Examiner notes that a combination of Toyoda and Ito was used to teach these limitations, not Toyoda or Ito alone. Specifically, Toyoda teaches an autonomous vehicle 100 that operates in an autonomous mode, which refers to navigating and/or maneuvering the vehicle 100 using one or more computing systems to control the vehicle 100 (Toyoda, Par. [0071]), comprising a controls module 220 that receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100 and a sensor system 120 that collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel) (Toyoda, Par. [0031] and [0038]) The controls module 220 generates collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs (i.e., the applied steering wheel torque) and received autonomous inputs (Toyoda, Fig. 3 and Par. [0032]) and then controls the vehicle 100 according to the collaborative controls (Toyoda, Fig. 3 and Par. [0054]). The collaborative controls are stored in database 240 and can be used by the controls module 220 to subsequently refine the autonomous inputs (Toyoda, Par. [0035]). In other words, Toyoda teaches implementing an autonomous driving maneuver (autonomous vehicle 100 operates in autonomous driving mode), detecting driver intervention via applied torque (controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100 and characterizes the manual inputs (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel)), determining a preferred control value from the applied torque (generates collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs (i.e., the applied steering wheel torque) and received autonomous inputs), and then use that preferred control value in subsequent autonomous operations (the collaborative controls are stored in database 240 and can be used by the controls module 220 to subsequently refine the autonomous inputs). While Toyoda does not explicitly teach the generated collaborative controls as being a “rate of rotation” of the steering wheel, the relationship between a measured steering wheel torque and a steering wheel rate of rotation would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Ito (Ito, Fig. 6, Par. [0020], [0084], and [0100]). It would have been obvious to and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship with the measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda in order to accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]). Therefore, Examiner maintains that the currently cited references teach the above stated limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s argument C. “…[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Toyoda and Ito…Toyoda and Ito attempt to solve different, unrelated problems in two different driving contexts (e.g., autonomous and non-autonomous vehicles),” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Toyoda and Ito address the problem of determining vehicle control values that “feel” a certain way as desired by the driver (Toyoda, Par. [0035] “learn driver preferences”) (Ito, Par. [0015] “accurately recognizing the operation feeling felt by the user”). As stated above, Ito teaches the relationship between a measured steering wheel torque and a steering wheel rate of rotation and thus it would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention (Ito, Fig. 6, Par. [0020], [0084], and [0100]). It would have been obvious to and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship with the measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda in order to learn driver preferences (Toyoda, Par. [0035]) and accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]). Therefore, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and be motivated to combine the teachings of Toyoda and Ito.
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.
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.
Claim 4 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the autonomous driving mode" in line 2 and “the measured rate of rotation” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Toyoda teaches “A method of adjusting a rate of rotation of a steering wheel in an autonomous vehicle comprising: measuring an amount of torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver during an autonomous driving maneuver (Par. [0031] teaches the controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100; Par. [0038] teaches the sensor system 120 collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel); Par. [0071] teaches the vehicle 100 is an autonomous vehicle that operates in an autonomous mode, which refers to navigating and/or maneuvering the vehicle 100 using one or more computing systems to control the vehicle 100); determining a preferred [control value] based on the measured amount of torque applied to the steering wheel during the autonomous driving maneuver (Fig. 3 and Par. [0032] teach generating collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs and received autonomous inputs); and adjusting the [control value] during a subsequent autonomous driving maneuver to the preferred [control value] (Fig. 3 and Par. [0054] teaches the controls module 220 controls the vehicle 100 according to the collaborative controls; Par. [0035] teaches the collaborative controls are stored in database 240 and can be used by the controls module 220 to subsequently refine the autonomous inputs).” However, Toyoda does not explicitly teach determining a “rate of rotation” based on the measured torque.
From the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches the relationship between a “rate of rotation” of a steering wheel to a measured torque applied to the steering wheel (Fig. 6, Par. [0020], and Par. [0084] teach sensitivity identifying map that relates a torque sensor value to a corresponding rotation number value, which can be a steering angle speed (rate of rotation) value (Par. [0100])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Toyoda to incorporate the teachings of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success to determine and substitute a preferred rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship of rate of rotation with measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda.
The motivation for doing so would be to learn driver preferences (Toyoda, Par. [0035]) and to accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein determining a preferred rate of rotation comprises: capturing a first set of steering wheel torque data regarding an amount of torque applied to the steering wheel, wherein the first set of steering wheel torque data comprises a first set of torque values at a first time (Toyoda, Par. [0031] teaches the controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100; Par. [0038] teaches the sensor system 120 collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel)); comparing the first set of torque values at the first time with a second set of torque values at the first time, wherein the second set of torque values are based on stored torque data regarding the amount of steering wheel torque necessary to complete the autonomous driving maneuver (Toyoda, Par. [0032] teaches performing a comparison between the received manual inputs (i.e., measured torque data) and received autonomous inputs (i.e., torque data needed to perform an autonomous driving maneuver)); and generating the preferred rate of rotation based on the difference between the first set of torque values and the second set of torque values (Fig. 3 and Par. [0032] teach generating collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs and received autonomous inputs).”
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein adjusting the rate of rotation during the autonomous driving mode from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred rate of rotation comprises slowing down the rate of rotation of the steering wheel (Toyoda, Fig. 3, Par. [0033], and Par. [0040] teaches generating collaborative controls and feedback for adjusting the collaborative controls, where the collaborative controls are generated by blending the manual and autonomous inputs (implying the control (steering wheel rate of rotation) is adjusted by either slowing down or speeding up the control (rate of rotation of the steering wheel))).”
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a semi-autonomous driving mode (Toyoda, Par. [0070] teaches a semi-autonomous operational mode).”
Regarding claim 8, Toyoda teaches “A method of adjusting a rate of rotation of a steering wheel in an autonomous vehicle comprising: measuring a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver during an autonomous driving mode, wherein the torque is applied to the steering wheel by the driver to interrupt an autonomous driving maneuver (Par. [0031] teaches the controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100; Par. [0032] teaches the controls module 220 iteratively performs the functions in a continuous manner; Par. [0038] teaches the sensor system 120 collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel and the corresponding steering wheel position and rate of rotation); Par. [0071] teaches the vehicle 100 is an autonomous vehicle that operates in an autonomous mode (which implies the manual inputs are received during an autonomous driving maneuver, thus interrupting it)); determining the preferred [control value] based on the measured torque applied by the driver at the time of interruption (Fig. 3 and Par. [0032] teach generating collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs (measure torque applied by the driver) and received autonomous inputs); and adjusting the [control value], during the autonomous driving mode, from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred [control value] (Fig. 3 and Par. [0054] teaches the controls module 220 controls the vehicle 100 according to the collaborative controls).” However, Toyoda does not explicitly teach determining a “rate of rotation” based on the measured torque.
From the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches measuring “a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver” and “a rate of rotation” (Par. [0062] teaches receiving a rotation number value from a rotation number detecting section and a torque sensor value from a torque detecting section; Par. [0100] teaches the rotation number value includes angle of the steering wheel (steering wheel position) and steering angle speed (rate of rotation)) and the relationship between a “rate of rotation” of a steering wheel to a measured torque applied to the steering wheel (Fig. 6, Par. [0020], and Par. [0084] teach sensitivity identifying map that relates a torque sensor value to a corresponding rotation number value, which can be a steering angle speed (rate of rotation) value (Par. [0100])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Toyoda to incorporate the teachings of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success to have the system taught by Toyoda measure an applied steering wheel torque and a rate of rotation of the steering wheel as taught by Ito, and to determine and substitute a preferred rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship of rate of rotation with measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda.
The motivation for doing so would be to learn driver preferences (Toyoda, Par. [0035]) and to accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches “wherein determining the preferred rate of rotation comprises: capturing a first set of steering wheel position data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capturing a first set of steering wheel rate of rotation data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving autonomous control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation) before receiving manual inputs (i.e., before the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel)); capturing a second set of steering wheel position data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capturing a second set of steering wheel rate of rotation data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving manual control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation when the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel) after receiving autonomous inputs); and comparing the first set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to the second set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to determine whether the rate of rotation of the steering wheel should be decreased or increased (Toyoda, Fig. 3 teaches determining the difference between the inputs and arbitrating the difference to produce collaborative controls (i.e., determining whether to increase or decrease) which are then used to control the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches “wherein adjusting the rate of rotation during the autonomous driving mode from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred rate of rotation comprises slowing down the rate of rotation of the steering wheel (Toyoda, Fig. 3, Par. [0033], and Par. [0040] teaches generating collaborative controls and feedback for adjusting the collaborative controls, where the collaborative controls are generated by blending the manual and autonomous inputs (implying the control (steering wheel rate of rotation) is adjusted by either slowing down or speeding up the control (rate of rotation of the steering wheel))).”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a semi-autonomous driving mode (Toyoda, Par. [0070] teaches a semi-autonomous operational mode).”
Regarding claim 15, Toyoda teaches “A system for altering the rate of rotation of a steering wheel during an autonomous driving mode comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 1 “Processor(s) 110”); a memory having computer readable instructions stored thereon (Fig. 2 and Par. [0027] teaches a memory 210 that stores modules 220 and 230 which are computer-readable instructions that can be executed by the processor 110), which when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, cause the processors to: measure a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver during an autonomous driving mode; measure a position of the steering wheel; measure the rate of rotation, wherein the position and rate of rotation are measured at the time when the torque was applied to the steering wheel (Par. [0031] teaches the controls module 220 receives electronic signals as the manual inputs produced when the driver operates a steering wheel of the vehicle 100; Par. [0038] teaches the sensor system 120 collects data that characterizes the manual inputs provided by the driver (i.e., a torque applied to the steering wheel and the corresponding steering wheel position and rate of rotation); Par. [0071] teaches the vehicle 100 is an autonomous vehicle that operates in an autonomous mode); determine a preferred [control value] (Fig. 3 and Par. [0032] teach generating collaborative controls for steering the vehicle 100 based on the difference between the received manual inputs and received autonomous inputs); and adjust the [control value] during the autonomous driving maneuver from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred [control value] (Fig. 3 and Par. [0054] teaches the controls module 220 controls the vehicle 100 according to the collaborative controls).” However, Toyoda does not explicitly teach determining a “rate of rotation” based on the measured torque.
From the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches measuring “a torque applied to the steering wheel by a driver”, “the steering wheel position”, and “the rate of rotation” (Par. [0062] teaches receiving a rotation number value from a rotation number detecting section and a torque sensor value from a torque detecting section; Par. [0100] teaches the rotation number value includes angle of the steering wheel (steering wheel position) and steering angle speed (rate of rotation)) and the relationship between a “rate of rotation” of a steering wheel to a measured torque applied to the steering wheel (Fig. 6, Par. [0020], and Par. [0084] teach sensitivity identifying map that relates a torque sensor value to a corresponding rotation number value, which can be a steering angle speed (rate of rotation) value (Par. [0100])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Toyoda to incorporate the teachings of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success to have the system taught by Toyoda measure an applied steering wheel torque, a steering wheel position, and a rate of rotation of the steering wheel as taught by Ito, and to determine and substitute a preferred rate of rotation, determined according to the relationship of rate of rotation with measured steering torque taught by Ito, as the generated collaborative control value taught by Toyoda
The motivation for doing so would be to learn driver preferences (Toyoda, Par. [0035]) and to accurately recognize the operation feeling felt by the user (Ito, Par. [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches further causing the processors to “capture a first set of steering wheel position data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capture a first set of steering wheel rate of rotation data before the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving autonomous control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation) before receiving manual inputs (i.e., before the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel)); capture a second set of steering wheel position data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel; capture a second set of steering wheel rate of rotation data after the torque is applied to the steering wheel (Toyoda; Fig. 3 teaches receiving manual control inputs (i.e., steering wheel position and steering wheel rate of rotation when the driver applies the torque to the steering wheel) after receiving autonomous inputs); and compare the first set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to the second set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to determine the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation (Toyoda, Fig. 3 teaches determining the difference between the inputs and arbitrating the difference to produce collaborative controls (preferred steering wheel rate of rotation) which are then used to control the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 16 above, and further teaches “wherein comparing the first set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to the second set of steering wheel position and rate of rotation data to determine the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation further comprises determining whether the rate of rotation of the steering wheel should be decreased or increased (Toyoda, Fig. 3 teaches determining the difference between the inputs and arbitrating the difference to produce collaborative controls (i.e., determining whether to increase or decrease) which are then used to control the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches “wherein adjusting the steering wheel rate of rotation during the autonomous driving mode from the measured rate of rotation to the preferred steering wheel rate of rotation comprises slowing down the rate of rotation of the steering wheel (Toyoda, Fig. 3, Par. [0033], and Par. [0040] teaches generating collaborative controls and feedback for adjusting the collaborative controls, where the collaborative controls are generated by blending the manual and autonomous inputs (implying the control (steering wheel rate of rotation) is adjusted by either slowing down or speeding up the control (rate of rotation of the steering wheel))).”
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above, and further teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a semi-autonomous driving mode (Toyoda, Par. [0070] teaches a semi-autonomous operational mode).”
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1) and further in view of Milton (US 2020/0017117 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 2, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “generating a driver profile, for one or more drivers of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each of the one or more drivers.”
From the same field of endeavor of adjusting vehicle operations, Milton teaches “generating a driver profile, for one or more drivers of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each of the one or more drivers (Par. [0021] teaches creating vehicle and operator profiles based on sensor data which is used to infer various attributes vehicles or vehicle operators, and the profiles can be used to determine vehicle adjustment values; Par. [0030] teaches storing computation results in a vehicle or operator profile, which can be any records representing dynamic and static information about a vehicle or operator, respectively; Par. [0039] teaches generating and updating a vehicle or operator profile that includes vehicle or operator data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success to include in the method taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito generating a driver profile comprising the preferred rate of rotation as taught by Milton.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow for individualized vehicle steering adjustments.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 8, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “generating a driver profile, for one or more drivers of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each of the one or more drivers.”
From the same field of endeavor of adjusting vehicle operations, Milton teaches “generating a driver profile, for one or more drivers of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each of the one or more drivers (Par. [0021] teaches creating vehicle and operator profiles based on sensor data which is used to infer various attributes vehicles or vehicle operators, and the profiles can be used to determine vehicle adjustment values; Par. [0030] teaches storing computation results in a vehicle or operator profile, which can be any records representing dynamic and static information about a vehicle or operator, respectively; Par. [0039] teaches generating and updating a vehicle or operator profile that includes vehicle or operator data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success to include in the method taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito generating a driver profile comprising the preferred rate of rotation as taught by Milton.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow for individualized vehicle steering adjustments.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 15, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach further causing the processors to “generate a driver profile, for each driver of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each driver.”
From the same field of endeavor of adjusting vehicle operations, Milton teaches further causing the processors to “generate a driver profile, for each driver of the vehicle, which comprises the preferred rate of rotation for each driver (Par. [0021] teaches creating vehicle and operator profiles based on sensor data which is used to infer various attributes vehicles or vehicle operators, and the profiles can be used to determine vehicle adjustment values; Par. [0030] teaches storing computation results in a vehicle or operator profile, which can be any records representing dynamic and static information about a vehicle or operator, respectively; Par. [0039] teaches generating and updating a vehicle or operator profile that includes vehicle or operator data).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Milton with a reasonable expectation of success to have the processors taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito generate a driver profile comprising the preferred rate of rotation as taught by Milton.
The motivation for doing so would be to allow for individualized vehicle steering adjustments.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1) and further in view of Pallett et al. (US 2016/0251016 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 5, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “wherein the autonomous driving mode further comprises a chauffeur mode.”
From the same field of endeavor, Pallett teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode further comprises a chauffeur mode (Par. [0006] teaches an autonomous mode controller that implements various driving modes including a “chauffeur” mode).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Pallett with a reasonable expectation of success to have the autonomous driving mode taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito include a chauffeur mode as taught by Pallett.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide the autonomous vehicle owner with multiple driving modes so that the owner can select a driving mode that matches their tastes (Pallett, Par. [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 12, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a chauffeur mode.”
From the same field of endeavor, Pallett teaches “wherein the autonomous driving mode comprises a chauffeur mode (Par. [0006] teaches an autonomous mode controller that implements various driving modes including a “chauffeur” mode).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Pallett with a reasonable expectation of success to have the autonomous driving mode taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito include a chauffeur mode as taught by Pallett.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide the autonomous vehicle owner with multiple driving modes so that the owner can select a driving mode that matches their tastes (Pallett, Par. [0005]-[0006]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2019/0009794 A1) in view of Ito et al. (US 2007/0250234 A1) and further in view of Hunt et al. (US 2019/0375409 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 5, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “wherein the semi-autonomous driving mode further comprises a guardian mode.”
From the same field of endeavor, Hunt teaches “wherein the semi-autonomous driving mode further comprises a guardian mode (Abstract teaches a guardian mode that has at least one of the autonomous vehicle capabilities disabled).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Hunt with a reasonable expectation of success to have the semi-autonomous driving mode taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito include a guardian mode as taught by Hunt.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide mode for safe and secure transportation of a user who is not fully competent (Hunt, Par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Toyoda and Ito teaches all the limitations of claim 12, however the combination of Toyoda and Ito does not explicitly teach “wherein the semi-autonomous driving mode comprises a guardian mode.”
From the same field of endeavor, Hunt teaches “wherein the semi-autonomous driving mode comprises a guardian mode (Abstract teaches a guardian mode that has at least one of the autonomous vehicle capabilities disabled).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Toyoda and Ito to incorporate the teachings of Hunt with a reasonable expectation of success to have the semi-autonomous driving mode taught by the combination of Toyoda and Ito include a guardian mode as taught by Hunt.
The motivation for doing so would be to provide mode for safe and secure transportation of a user who is not fully competent (Hunt, Par. [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm 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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665