DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the request for continuation filed August 6th, 2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 6th, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 6th, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Kim; Ana (US Pub. No. 20180297470 A1), herein after Kim, as evidenced by Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches [a] system, comprising: input circuitry configured to receive: risk factor information that affects a vehicle's ability to react to a surrounding environment at a vehicle speed...; and sensor data (Kim: Para. 0061 teaching a vehicle that collects sensor information for use with an ADAS system; and Para. 0070 teaching that the information on the surroundings of the vehicle is collected), wherein the risk factor information comprises a plurality of risk factors (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; and Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant); and determine a total risk score based on a weighted summation of the plurality of risk factors, wherein weights for the weighted summation are determined based on importance of their corresponding risk factors to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) feature (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; and Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant); adjust a threshold based on the total risk score, wherein the threshold affects the ADAS feature (Kim: Para. 0324 teaching that a projection time is determined based on the caution level of important information; Para. 0296 teaching that the important information is information related to potential risks that the vehicle may face during driving; Para. 0325 teaching that the caution level ranges from Level 1 to Level 5; and Para. 0334 teaching that the caution level impacts the time in which the important information is projected to the occupant of the vehicle); and perform the ADAS feature based on the adjusted threshold and the sensor data (Kim: Para. 0421 teaching that a controller 170 acquires the driving information used to determine caution levels from various systems including an object detection apparatus 300 and a navigation system 770; Para. 0233 teaching that a driving system 710 performs autonomous control of the vehicle by providing a control signal to the vehicle based on location information of the vehicle and information from the navigation system 770; and Para. 0234 teaching that the driving system 710 also bases its control signal based on the information received from the object detection apparatus 300).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the projection of important information to the driver is an ADAS feature, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Kim which teaches in Para. 0061 that their vehicle includes “a driver assistant apparatus includes a device that assists a driver based on information acquired from various sensors. The driver assistant apparatus may include an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS)” and in Para. 0009 that the object of the projection of information is to provide important information that can assist a driver to respond to a situation for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application that the projection of information in Kim can be classified as a feature of the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as it provides information that assists the driver, for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 2, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the ADAS feature comprises one of: a forward collision warning (FCW) feature; a blind spot warning (BSW) feature; an adaptive cruise control (ACC) feature; or an automatic emergency braking (AEB) feature (Kim: Para. 0180 teaching that the vehicle driving information includes a probability of collision between the vehicle and an object as well as the location and movement of any pedestrians or bicycles in the vicinity of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein when the risk factor information indicates a first risk level, the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the threshold so that the timing of the ADAS feature occurs at a first time (Kim: Para. 0325 teaching that the caution level ranges from Level 1 to Level 5; and Para. 0334 teaching that the caution level impacts the time in which the important information is projected to the occupant of the vehicle) and wherein when the risk factor information indicates a second higher risk level, the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the threshold so that the timing of the ADAS feature occurs at a second earlier time (Kim: Para. 0332 teaching that higher caution levels cause the projection time to be projected earlier while lower caution levels are projected later).
Regarding claim 4, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the risk factor information comprises a first risk factor and a second risk factor, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a total risk score as a weighted summation of the first risk factor and the second risk factor, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the threshold based on the risk factor information by adjusting the threshold based on the total risk score (Kim: Para. 0494 teaching that caution levels may be based on multiple types of important information and when multiple types of important information are used to determine the caution level the caution level is higher than if only one of the types of important information is considered).
Regarding claim 6, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the ADAS feature comprises a visual notification and wherein the system further comprises a user interface configured to display the visual notification (Kim: Para. 0344 teaching that the system assists the driver by displaying a notification of important information based on the caution level of that information).
Regarding claim 8, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises environmental conditions comprising one or more of road geometry, traffic obstructions, road surface condition, weather, tailgating vehicle, or available escape route (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0126 teaching that the system recognizes nearby objects including nearby vehicles and roads; Para. 0131 teaching that the recognition of the road includes recognition of the road's geometry and geographical features; and Para. 0176 teaching that the vehicle receives information on the traffic of the route which includes congestion levels of the traffic).
Regarding claim 10, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises vehicle state information comprising one or more of tire wear, brake wear, accelerator pedal position, vehicle lane, windshield clarity, or vehicle equipment (Kim: Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation can include vehicle state information; Para. 0081 teaching that vehicle state information includes information on the state of various components of the vehicle and if there are any errors with those components; and Para. 0248 teaching that the vehicle state information includes an accelerator pedal position sensor and a brake pedal position sensor).
Regarding claim 11, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data is received from one or more of a camera, radar sensor, angle sensor, accelerometer, or a global positioning system (Kim: Para. 0135 teaching that the objection detection apparatus 300 may include a camera and radar sensor; and Para. 0249 teaching that the sensor unit 120 may include sensors that obtain information including GPS information and vehicle angle information).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches [a] method for driver assistance on a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving risk factor information that affects a vehicle's ability to react to a surrounding environment at a vehicle speed and sensor data (Kim: Para. 0061 teaching a computer process on a vehicle that collects sensor information for use with an ADAS system; and Para. 0070 teaching that the information on the surroundings of the vehicle is collected), wherein the risk factor information comprises a plurality of risk factors (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; and Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant); determining, using processing circuitry, a total risk score based on a weighted summation of the plurality of risk factors, wherein weights for the weighted summation are determined based on importance of their corresponding risk factors to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) feature (Kim: Para. 0325, teaching that the caution levels for each situation is ranked based on how dangerous the situation is; and Para. 0494 teaching that caution levels may be based on multiple types of important information and when multiple types of important information are used to determine the caution level the caution level is higher than if only one of the types of important information is considered); adjusting, using the processing circuitry, a threshold based on the total risk score, wherein the threshold affects timing of the ADAS feature (Kim: Para. 0324 teaching that a projection time is determined based on the caution level of important information; Para. 0296 teaching that the important information is information related to potential risks that the vehicle may face during driving; Para. 0325 teaching that the caution level ranges from Level 1 to Level 5; and Para. 0334 teaching that the caution level impacts the time in which the important information is projected to the occupant of the vehicle); and performing, using the processing circuitry, the ADAS feature based on the adjusted threshold and the sensor data (Kim: Para. 0421 teaching that a controller 170 acquires the driving information used to determine caution levels from various systems including an object detection apparatus 300 and a navigation system 770; Para. 0233 teaching that a driving system 710 performs autonomous control of the vehicle by providing a control signal to the vehicle based on location information of the vehicle and information from the navigation system 770; and Para. 0234 teaching that the driving system 710 also bases its control signal based on the information received from the object detection apparatus 300).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the projection of important information to the driver is an ADAS feature, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Kim which teaches in Para. 0061 that their vehicle includes “a driver assistant apparatus includes a device that assists a driver based on information acquired from various sensors. The driver assistant apparatus may include an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS)” and in Para. 0009 that the object of the projection of information is to provide important information that can assist a driver to respond to a situation for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application that the projection of information in Kim can be classified as a feature of the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as it provides information that assists the driver, for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
Regarding claim 13, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the ADAS feature comprises one of: a forward collision warning (FCW) feature; a blind spot warning (BSW) feature; an adaptive cruise control (ACC) feature; or an automatic emergency braking (AEB) feature (Kim: Para. 0180 teaching that the vehicle driving information includes a probability of collision between the vehicle and an object as well as the location and movement of any pedestrians or bicycles in the vicinity of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein when the risk factor information indicates a first risk level, the threshold is adjusted so that the timing of the ADAS feature occurs at a first time (Kim: Para. 0325 teaching that the caution level ranges from Level 1 to Level 5; and Para. 0334 teaching that the caution level impacts the time in which the operation indicator is projected) and wherein when the risk factor information indicates a second higher risk level, the threshold is adjusted so that the timing of the ADAS feature occurs at a second earlier time (Kim: Para. 0332 teaching that higher caution levels cause the projection time to be projected earlier while lower caution levels are projected later).
Regarding claim 15, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the risk factor information comprises a first risk factor and a second risk factor, the method further comprising: determining a total risk score as a weighted summation of the first risk factor and the second risk factor, wherein adjusting the threshold based on the risk factor information comprises adjusting the threshold based on the total risk score (Kim: Para. 0494 teaching that caution levels may be based on multiple types of important information and when multiple types of important information are used to determine the caution level the caution level is higher than if only one of the types of important information is considered).
Regarding claim 16, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the ADAS feature comprises a visual notification, the method further comprising presenting the visual notification on a user interface (Kim: Para. 0344 teaching that the system assists the driver by displaying a notification of important information based on the caution level of that information).
Regarding claim 17, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and Kim goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises environmental conditions comprising one or more of road geometry, traffic obstructions, road surface condition, weather, tailgating vehicle, or available escape routes (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0126 teaching that the system recognizes nearby objects including nearby vehicles and roads; Para. 0131 teaching that the recognition of the road includes recognition of the road's geometry and geographical features; and Para. 0176 teaching that the vehicle receives information on the traffic of the route which includes congestion levels of the traffic).
Regarding claim 19, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and Kim goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises vehicle state information comprising one or more of tire wear, brake wear, accelerator pedal position, vehicle lane, windshield clarity, or vehicle equipment (Kim: Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation can include vehicle state information; Para. 0081 teaching that vehicle state information includes information on the state of various components of the vehicle and if there are any errors with those components; and Para. 0248 teaching that the vehicle state information includes an accelerator pedal position sensor and a brake pedal position sensor).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium having non-transitory computer-readable instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: receive risk factor information that affects a vehicle's ability to react to a surrounding environment at a vehicle speed and sensor data (Kim: Para. 0061 teaching a vehicle that collects sensor information for use with an ADAS system; Para. 0070 teaching that the information on the surroundings of the vehicle is collected and Para. 0253 teaching that the various processes and data of the vehicle are performed using code stored in various forms of physical memories), wherein the risk factor information comprises a plurality of risk factors (Kim: Para. 0016 teaching that the caution level may be based on how dangerous a situation is based on information on its surroundings; Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; and Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant); determine a total risk score based on a weighted summation of the plurality of risk factors, wherein weights for the weighted summation are determined based on importance of their corresponding risk factors to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) feature (Kim: Para. 0325, teaching that the caution levels for each situation is ranked based on how dangerous the situation is; and Para. 0494 teaching that caution levels may be based on multiple types of important information and when multiple types of important information are used to determine the caution level the caution level is higher than if only one of the types of important information is considered); adjust a threshold based on the total risk score, wherein the threshold affects timing of the ADAS feature (Kim: Para. 0324 teaching that a projection time is determined based on the caution level of important information; Para. 0296 teaching that the important information is information related to potential risks that the vehicle may face during driving; Para. 0325 teaching that the caution level ranges from Level 1 to Level 5; and Para. 0334 teaching that the caution level impacts the time in which the important information is projected to the occupant of the vehicle); and perform the ADAS feature based on the adjusted threshold and the sensor data (Kim: Para. 0421 teaching that a controller 170 acquires the driving information used to determine caution levels from various systems including an object detection apparatus 300 and a navigation system 770; Para. 0233 teaching that a driving system 710 performs autonomous control of the vehicle by providing a control signal to the vehicle based on location information of the vehicle and information from the navigation system 770; and Para. 0234 teaching that the driving system 710 also bases its control signal based on the information received from the object detection apparatus 300).
Kim does not explicitly teach that the projection of important information to the driver is an ADAS feature, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Kim which teaches in Para. 0061 that their vehicle includes “a driver assistant apparatus includes a device that assists a driver based on information acquired from various sensors. The driver assistant apparatus may include an Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS)” and in Para. 0009 that the object of the projection of information is to provide important information that can assist a driver to respond to a situation for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application that the projection of information in Kim can be classified as a feature of the advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as it provides information that assists the driver, for the benefit of improving the safety of autonomous and assisted driving vehicle systems.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Yamamoto; Norio (US Pub. No. 20180032824 A1), herein after Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 7, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the ADAS feature comprises... emergency braking (Kim: Para. 0436 teaching that, in response to the caution level of a dangerous situation, the occupant of the vehicle needs to use the vehicle's brakes).
Kim is silent to [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the ADAS feature comprises automatic emergency braking and wherein the system comprises an automatic brake system configured to, perform automatic braking of the vehicle based on the adjusted threshold and the sensor data.
In a similar field, Yamamoto teaches [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the ADAS feature comprises automatic emergency braking and wherein the system comprises an automatic brake system configured to, perform automatic braking of the vehicle based on the adjusted threshold and the sensor data (Yamamoto: Para. 0064 teaching that, in response to a risk of collision, the vehicle must perform autonomous emergency braking; and Para. 0104 teaching that the risk of collision is expressed as a caution level to the driver of the vehicle) for the benefit of mitigating or avoiding damage due to collision.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify collision warning and brake recommendation system from Kim to also automatically engage emergency brakes when the risk of collision is too high, as taught by Yamamoto, for the benefit of mitigating or avoiding damage due to collision.
Claims 9 and 18 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Kodali et al. (US Pub. No. 20200086882 A1, herein after Kodali.
Regarding claim 9, Kim remains as applied as in claim 1, and Kim goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises… driver behavior information comprising one or more of history of ADAS warnings, average braking reaction time, steering wheel adjustments, driver experience, or driver distraction (Kim: Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant; and Para. 0104 teaching that the occupant information can indicate that the occupant is in faint, dozing off, excited, or in an emergency situation).
Kim is silent to the driving behavior is historical driving behavior.
In a similar field, Kodali teaches [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises historical driver behavior information (Kodali: Para. 0032, teaching a system that generates models that predicts the risk of a situation based on the driver's behavior and environmental conditions; and Para. 0038, teaching that the model of the risk of a driving scenario can be generated using historical information on a driver's behavior); and for the benefit of accurately assessing the risk of a driving scenario and reducing errors with the assessment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the caution levels based off driver behavior from Kim to also factor in historical driver behavior, as taught by Kodali, accurately assessing the risk of a driving scenario and reducing errors with the assessment.
Regarding claim 18, Kim remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises… driver behavior information comprising of one or more of history of ADAS warnings, average braking reaction time, steering wheel adjustments, driver experience, or driver distraction (Kim: Para. 0014 and 0015 teaching that information used to determine the caution level of a dangerous situation may include occupant-related information; Para. 0080 teaching that the occupant information includes driver behavior, dozing, health condition, and emotional state of an occupant; and Para. 0104 teaching that the occupant information can indicate that the occupant is in faint, dozing off, excited, or in an emergency situation).
Kim is silent to the driving behavior is historical driving behavior.
In a similar field, Kodali teaches [t]he method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of risk factors comprises historical driver behavior information (Kodali: Para. 0032, teaching a system that generates models that predicts the risk of a situation based on the driver's behavior and environmental conditions; and Para. 0038, teaching that the model of the risk of a driving scenario can be generated using historical information on a driver's behavior); and for the benefit of accurately assessing the risk of a driving scenario and reducing errors with the assessment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the caution levels based off driver behavior from Kim to also factor in historical driver behavior, as taught by Kodali, accurately assessing the risk of a driving scenario and reducing errors with the assessment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 6th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-20 under have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see page 8 lines 29-35, filed August 6th, 2025) that Kim is deficient in teaching the amended limitation of determin[e/ing , using processing circuitry,] a total risk score based on a weighted summation of the plurality of risk factors, wherein weights for the weighted summation are determined based on importance of their corresponding risk factors to an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) feature as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 20. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that Kim does teach that each important information (risk factor of Kim) is assigned a caution level, which act as weights based on their importance, from 1 to 5 as stated in at least paragraph 0325 while paragraph 0494 establishes that when multiple types of important information exist, the resultant caution level is higher based on the combination of the caution levels of the different types of important information. As such, the invention of Kim effectively preforms the step of determining a total caution level based on a summation of the different caution levels of multiple importation information.
Applicant contends (see page 8 line 36 through page 9 line 2, filed August 6th, 2025) that dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, and 13-19 are allowable over the prior art of record as they depend upon the independent claims 1 and 12 which were rendered allowable over the prior art of record. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as the independent claims have not been rendered allowable over the prior art of record, the dependent claims stand to fall with the claims they depend upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663