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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed December 18, 2025. Claims 1-4 and 5-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2021-0155174 filed November 11, 2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 1-3, 5-9 and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akash et al. (US 20220396287; hereinafter Akash, already of record), in view of Misu (US 20210078608).
Regarding Claim 1,
Akash teaches
A method for providing a human-machine-interface (HMI) mode, (Akash: Abstract) the method comprising:
analyzing, by a device of a vehicle, (Akash: Paragraph [0027]-[0028], FIG. 1; The system (100) contains the components (processor(s), memory, etc.) necessary to carry out the various functions of the invention.) a state of an occupant; (Akash: Paragraph [0033]; System receives occupant sensor data, including gaze data from sensors (102).)
...
determining, by the device of the vehicle, an HMI mode corresponding to the confidence score among a plurality of predefined HMI modes; (Akash: Paragraph [0045], [0047]; Applying HMI output based on trust score.) and
providing, by the device of the vehicle, first guidance information to the occupant based on the determined HMI mode, (Akash: Paragraph [0048])
wherein the plurality of HMI modes uses different numbers of media to provide an information, thereby varying the number of media used to provide the information based on the occupant’s confidence score with respect to the vehicle, (Akash: Paragraph [0007]; “The HMI action may include one or more of displaying a display cue, providing an audio cue, or providing a haptic cue associated with a road element within the environment.” and [0058]-[0059])
...
Akash does not teach
...
wherein the determining of the HMI mode includes selecting, from among the plurality of predefined HMI modes, the HMI mode that utilizes a greater number of media as the calculated confidence score decreases,
wherein the calculating of the confidence score includes increasing or decreasing the confidence score by a weight, and
wherein the weight is adaptively based on the HMI mode applied to providing the second guidance information and whether the occupant gazes at an external environment of the vehicle in response to the provision of the second guidance information, the second guidance information being provided prior to the first guidance information.
However in the same field of endeavor, Misu teaches
...
wherein the determining of the HMI mode includes selecting, from among the plurality of predefined HMI modes, the HMI mode that utilizes a greater number of media as the calculated confidence score decreases, (Misu: Paragraph [0027]-[0029], [0032]-[0033])
wherein the calculating of the confidence score includes increasing or decreasing the confidence score by a weight, (Misu: Paragraph [0072]-[0074]; “...the POMDP may be configured to provide a trust-workload model that may be utilized to estimate trust and workload levels of the driver continuously in real time using a belief state b(s).” Here the trust score is the calibrated trust levels which are estimated by the POMDP when it is configured to provide a trust-workload model and the weight is the belief state factor, b(s). The belief state acts as a weight to adjust the estimated trust level in real time through iterative calculations of the belief state which affects how high or low the trust estimation is thereby increasing or decreasing the confidence score by a weight.) and
wherein the weight is adaptively based on the HMI mode applied to providing the second guidance information and whether the occupant gazes at an external environment of the vehicle in response to the provision of the second guidance information, the second guidance information being provided prior to the first guidance information. (Misu: Paragraph [0069], [0073]-[0076]; “The transparency control module 208 may thereby control the display device(s) 112 to provide respective levels of automation transparency of one or more driving functions of the vehicle 102 based on the data points. Accordingly, the transparency control module 208 may be configured to implement the optimal control policy determined based on the POMDP model based on states at a real-time and one more future points in time to appropriately vary automation transparency and autonomous operation of one or more driving functions to achieve trust calibration based on the POMDP model computed based on real-time data.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the HMI mode determination system of Akash with the vehicle transparency control calculation of Misu for the benefit of providing an optimal level of automation transparency. (Misu: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 2,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of HMI modes include one or more of a maximum guidance mode, (Akash: Paragraph [0045]; “Under Trust” condition.) an intermediate guidance mode, or a minimum guidance mode, (Akash: Paragraph [0045]; “Over Trust” condition.)
wherein the maximum guidance mode corresponds to the confidence score which is less than or equal to a preset first threshold; (Akash: Paragraph [0045], [0058]; The maximum guidance mode is the under trust scenario which is determined when the trust score is under a trust model threshold.)
wherein the intermediate guidance mode corresponds to the confidence score which is greater than the first threshold and less than or equal to a preset second threshold; and
wherein the minimum guidance mode corresponds to the confidence score which is greater than the second threshold. (Akash: Paragraph [0045], [0058]; The minimum guidance mode is the over trust scenario which is determined when the trust score is over a trust model threshold.)
Regarding Claim 3,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing of the state of the occupant includes analyzing the gaze of the occupant following the provision of second guidance information to the occupant. (Akash: Paragraph [0045]; The system determines a trust model of the occupant based on the activities of the occupant during a second scene.)
Regarding Claim 5,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the calculating of the confidence score includes:
giving an initial confidence score to the occupant; (Akash: Paragraph [0031]; The trust model and trust score of the occupant at a first scene is the initial confidence score.) and
updating the confidence score based on the state of the occupant. (Akash: Paragraph [0031], [0059]; The trust model and trust value of the occupant may change throughout a trip (specifically in between a first scene and a second scene).)
Regarding Claim 6,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5, wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle, decreasing the confidence score; (Akash: Paragraph [0049]) and
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside, increasing the confidence score. (Akash: Paragraph [0050])
Regarding Claim 7,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5, wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle even though second guidance information is not provided to the occupant, decreasing the confidence score; (Akash: Paragraph [0006], [0045], [0048]; If the occupant is detected looking outside during the over trust mode, the behavior controller will lower the trust score of the occupant and change the mode to be the under trust mode.) and
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside after the second guidance information is provided to the occupant, increasing the confidence score. (Akash: Paragraph [0006], [0045], [0048]; If the occupant is detected to not be looking outside during the under trust mode, the behavior controller will raise the trust score of the occupant and change the mode to be the over trust mode.)
Regarding Claim 8,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5, wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle after second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a minimum guidance mode, decreasing the confidence score; (Akash: Paragraph [0039], [0045]; If the trust model calculator determines that the occupant is performing actions related to the under trust scenario during the second scene and while currently in the over trust mode, the trust score will decrease and the HMI system will switch to an under trust mod.) and
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside after the second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a maximum guidance mode or an intermediate guidance mode, increasing the confidence score. (Akash: Paragraph [0039], [0045]; If the trust model calculator determines that the occupant is performing actions related to the over trust scenario during the second scene and while currently in the under trust mode, the trust score will increase and the HMI system will switch to an over trust mode.)
Regarding Claim 9,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5, wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle after second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a maximum guidance mode or an intermediate guidance mode, keeping the confidence score to be unchanged; (Akash: Paragraph [0039], [0045]; If the behavior controller detects that the occupant is still performing actions related to the under trust scenario while in the under trust mode at the second scene, the system will remain in the under trust mode.) and
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside after the second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a minimum guidance mode, keeping the confidence score to be unchanged. (Akash: Paragraph [0039], [0045]; If the behavior controller detects that the occupant is still performing actions related to the over trust scenario while in the over trust mode at the second scene, the system will remain in the over trust mode.)
Regarding Claim 14,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5, wherein the giving of the initial confidence score includes giving a preset initial confidence score to the occupant as the initial confidence score. (Akash: Paragraph [0006], [0031], [0039], [0045]; The system generates an initial trust model for the occupant and generates a first trust value to use when deciding the initial HMI mode to use.)
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 3 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 17,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The device of claim 16, wherein the confidence score is calculated based on at least one of whether the second guidance information is provided to the occupant, the state of the occupant analyzed at the time at which the second guidance information is provided to the occupant, or an HMI mode corresponding to the second guidance information. (Akash: Paragraph [0045], [0048], [0058]; The system analyzes occupant behavior during a second scene and determines if the system should utilize the over trust or under trust scenario based on the trust model of the occupant in the second scene.)
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is analogous to Claim 5 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is analogous to Claim 6 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akash, in view of Misu, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9 and 14-20, above, and further in view of Neiswander et al. (US 20210070221; hereinafter Neiswander, already of record).
Regarding Claim 10,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5,...
Akash, in view of Misu, does not teach
...wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
changing a weight by which the confidence score is increased or decreased according to an HMI mode.
However in the same field of endeavor, Neiswander teaches
...wherein the updating of the confidence score includes:
changing a weight by which the confidence score is increased or decreased according to an HMI mode. (Neiswander: Paragraph [0038], [0042]; The system is capable of dynamically changing the amount that increases or decreases the attention buffer (confidence score) based on the behaviors of the user.)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the confidence value calculation of Akash and Misu with the dynamic changing of the weights, based on the HMI mode, which affect the confidence value of Neiswander for the benefit of avoiding a need for additional processing resources for processing visual glance behavior monitoring data. (Neiswander: Paragraph [0009])
Regarding Claim 11,
Akash, in view of Misu, and further in view of Neiswander, teaches
The method of claim 10, wherein the changing of the weight by which the confidence score is increased or decreased according to the HMI mode includes:
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle after second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a maximum guidance mode or an intermediate guidance mode, decreasing the confidence score by a first amount; (Neiswander: Paragraph [0039]; When the user is interacting with the systems of the vehicle, they are being curious about the driving situation and the attention buffer (confidence score) is decreased.) and
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside after the second guidance information is provided to the occupant in the maximum guidance mode or the intermediate guidance mode, increasing the confidence score by a second amount which is greater than the first amount. (Neiswander: Paragraph [0042], [0044]; The system can dynamically change the value by which the attention buffer score is increased or decreased based on the user’s actions.)
The motivation to combine Akash, Misu, and Neiswander is the same as stated for Claim 10 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Akash, in view of Misu, and further in view of Neiswander, teaches
The method of claim 10, wherein the changing of the weight by which the confidence score is increased or decreased according to the HMI mode includes:
in response to the occupant performing a task or not gazing outside after second guidance information is provided to the occupant in a minimum guidance mode, increasing the confidence score by a first amount; (Neiswander: Paragraph [0041]; The attention buffer is increased by an initial amount when the user is not interacting with the vehicle system and is performing a different task.) and
in response to the occupant gazing outside or being curious about a driving situation of the vehicle after the second guidance information is provided to the occupant in the minimum guidance mode, decreasing the confidence score by a second amount which is greater than the first amount. (Neiswander: Paragraph [0042], [0044]; The system can dynamically change the value by which the attention buffer score is increased or decreased based on the user’s actions.)
The motivation to combine Akash, Misu, and Neiswander is the same as stated for Claim 10 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akash, in view of Misu as applied to claims 1-3, 5-9 and 14-20, above, and further in view of Nagata et al. (US 11175669; hereinafter Nagata, already of record).
Regarding Claim 13,
Akash, in view of Misu, teaches
The method of claim 5,...
Akash does not teach
...wherein the giving of the initial confidence score includes:
acquiring identification information of the occupant;
retrieving personal information matching the identification information of the occupant among a plurality of prestored personal information; (Nagata: Column 10, Line 40-43; User Profile) and
giving a confidence score, which is mapped to the retrieved personal information, to the occupant as the initial confidence score. (Nagata: Column 10, Line 43-51)
However in the same field of endeavor, Nagata teaches
...wherein the giving of the initial confidence score includes:
acquiring identification information of the occupant;
retrieving personal information matching the identification information of the occupant among a plurality of prestored personal information; (Nagata: Column 10, Line 40-43; User Profile) and
giving a confidence score, which is mapped to the retrieved personal information, to the occupant as the initial confidence score. (Nagata: Column 10, Line 43-51)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the confidence score calculation system and behavior controller of Akash, in view of Misu, with the personal information storing prestored confidence scores of Nagata for the benefit of storing historical data so that the user profile may be used for subsequent trips, areas, regions or other locations to perform autonomous driving. (Nagata: Column 15, Line 9-11)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights