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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 08/28/2025, in which claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 14-19, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, 14, 19, and 21-25 are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks that “the cited art does not disclose checking a fourth degree of risk corresponding to a reference degree determined based on the status information of a non-mobility handicap user among the plurality of users and checking the first degree of risk includes checking a second degree of risk corresponding to a type of a mobility handicap user.” Applicant specifically argues on page 9 of the remarks that Uno discloses “a configuration in which the standing status of the high-risk passenger is given priority consideration, rather than a configuration in which various degrees of risk are checked and/or given weight for both a non-mobility handicap user and a mobility handicap user.” Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that the “cited art further does not disclose combining a second degree of risk and a third degree of risk includes giving a weight to at least one of the second degree of risk or the third degree of risk” because “Uno’s use of the word “weight” pertains to a weight as a physical property of matter in the context of a physical center of gravity, while Applicant’s use of the work (sic) weight pertains to a multipliers used to prioritize data (e.g., degrees of risk).”
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Uno in view of Nienhueser fail to disclose all elements of the amended claims. Regarding the “checking a fourth degree of risk corresponding to a reference degree determined based on the status information of a non-mobility handicap user among the plurality of users” limitation, Uno discloses this limitation by determining the presence and absence of any high-risk passengers. The risk information acquisition unit acquires the risk, ID, and attribute information of each passenger to then classify passengers as either a high-risk person with a fall risk of 5 or more, or an “ordinary person” having a fall risk of less than 5 (Uno [0045]). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a non-mobility handicap user is a passenger with a fall risk of less than 5 because a fall risk of less than 5 is assigned to passengers who are absent of the mobility handicaps that are present in high-risk passengers (Uno [0041]-[0042]). Further, Uno discloses appropriate control of the vehicle is determined based on whether a high-risk passenger is present or whether no passengers are determined to be high-risk (Uno [0061], [0078]). Therefore, Uno discloses “checking a fourth degree of risk corresponding to a reference degree determined based on the status information of a non-mobility handicap user among the plurality of users” by determining the presence and absence of high-risk passengers.
Regarding the “checking the first degree of risk includes checking a second degree of risk corresponding to a type of a mobility handicap user” limitation, Uno discloses this limitation by converting a plurality of characteristics into risk values (Uno [0041], Fig. 3). Uno discloses various risk values are assigned to characteristics including age, illness, disability, and pregnancy, which are combined to determine the total fall risk (Uno [0041], [0106], Fig. 3). Therefore, Uno discloses “checking the first degree of risk includes checking a second degree of risk corresponding to a type of a mobility handicap user” because risk values are assigned based on the type of characteristics associated with a mobility handicap for each passenger.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Uno in view of Nienhueser fail to disclose “giving a weight to at least one of the second degree of risk or the third degree of risk,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Uno discloses determining travel restrictions based on dynamic fall risk information for passengers (Uno [0058]). For example, travel restrictions are increased when a high-risk person is in a high-risk standing posture, compared to the travel restrictions when a high-risk person is in a low-risk standing posture (Uno [0058]). Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Uno discloses giving a weight to the third degree of risk corresponding to standing posture because travel restrictions are further increased for a high-risk person based on the risk associated with the standing posture (i.e., the standing posture risk is weighted because it results in further travel restrictions). Further, Uno discloses giving a weight to a second degree of risk corresponding to a type of mobility handicap because when a plurality of high-risk passengers are present, the passenger with the highest falling-down risk value may be monitored while all other passengers are excluded from monitoring (Uno [0110]). The falling-down risk value is associated with a type of mobility handicap because risk values are assigned based on the characteristics associated with various mobility handicaps (Uno [0041], Fig. 3). Even if Uno did not disclose “giving a weight to at least one of the second degree of risk or the third degree of risk,” Nienhueser discloses individual safety states can be combined in a weighted manner (Nienhueser [0012]). Therefore, Uno in view of Nienhueser disclose all elements of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
With respect to the request for rejoinder:
Applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks that withdrawn claims 15-18 are eligible for rejoinder because the “withdrawn claims depend from and require all of the limitations of the allowable claim.”
In response to applicant’s request for rejoinder, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the withdrawn claims are eligible for rejoinder. The requirements for rejoinder include the non-elected invention depending from or otherwise requiring all limitations of an allowable claim. See MPEP 821.04. However, the current claims are not allowable as explained in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below. Therefore, the withdrawn claims are not eligible for rejoinder.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
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 1-5, 7, 9-10, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0107421 A1 in view of Nienhueser et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0126911 A1 (hereinafter Nienhueser).
Regarding claim 1, Uno discloses a method of controlling a moving object (see at least Uno Fig. 4), the method comprising:
checking profile information of a plurality of users who ride in the moving object and status information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0089]: “The external transfer unit 175 cooperates with the external communication device 45 to transfer data such as passenger compartment image and passenger compartment sound necessary for grasping the passenger status and the passenger compartment situation toward the operation management computer 200.”; [0036]: “The passenger identification unit 50 is an in-vehicle computer having a function of personally authenticating the passenger P when boarding the vehicle ADV and a function of determining the characteristics of each passenger P.”);
checking a first degree of risk based on the profile information and the status information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0060]: “In S102, the fall risk for each passenger P is individually determined based on the attribute information acquired in S101.”);
checking a fourth degree of risk corresponding to a reference degree determined based on the status information of a non-mobility handicap user among the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0045]: “The risk information acquisition unit 71 categorizes each passenger P into groups according to the fall risk. Specifically, the risk information acquisition unit 71 classifies the passengers P boarding the passenger compartment C into a high-risk person Pr (for example, having a fall risk of 5 or more) determined to have a high falling-down risk and other passengers P (for example, as an ordinary person having a fall risk of 4 or less).”; [0041]: “The characteristic storage database 56 stores a table for converting the age of passenger P, deterioration of physical fitness, presence/absence of illness during treatment, presence/absence of pregnancy, presence/absence of disability, etc. into risk values.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation a non-mobility handicap user includes an ordinary person having a fall risk of 4 or less because there is an absence of the high-risk person characteristics including a mobility handicap);
checking a highest degree of risk among the first degree of risk and the fourth degree of risk (see at least Uno [0042]: “The risk determination unit 57 quantifies the attribute information acquired by the attribute information acquisition unit 54 using the fall risk data read from the characteristic storage database 56, and determines the risk of each passenger P. As an example, the maximum risk is defined as 10 points, and it is accumulated for each item in the form of 8 points depending on age, 5 points due to deterioration of physical fitness, 5 points due to hospital visits, and so on.”; [0106]: “In the above embodiment, the attribute information and the fall risk data are combined so as to quantify the fall risk, and passengers having a fall risk of a threshold value (e.g., level 5) or higher are selected as high-risk persons.”);
setting an operation mode of the moving object based on the highest degree of risk (see at least Uno [0071]: “On the other hand, when it is determined in S124 that there is a high-risk person Pr in a standing state, the process proceeds to S125. In S125, an early deceleration sequence is performed, and the process proceeds to S126.”);
and controlling movement of the moving object based on the operation mode (see at least Uno [0071]: “In the early deceleration sequence, the timing of starting braking for stopping is earlier than when there is no high-risk person Pr in the standing state. Then, in the stop sequence of S126, the braking force of the vehicle ADV is limited to a deceleration of about a half of the normal stop sequence.”),
wherein: checking the first degree of risk includes checking a second degree of risk corresponding to a type of a mobility handicap of user among the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0041]: “The characteristic storage database 56 stores a table for converting the age of passenger P, deterioration of physical fitness, presence/absence of illness during treatment, presence/absence of pregnancy, presence/absence of disability, etc. into risk values.”),
checking a third degree of risk corresponding to standing posture information of the mobility handicap user (see at least Uno [0046]: “Specifically, the passenger condition grasping unit 72 continuously monitors the posture of each passenger P and behaviors of each passenger P such as movement (or a position), sitting and leaving in the passenger compartment, and determines whether a high-risk person is in a standing state (i.e., standing position).”),
and combining the second degree of risk and the third degree of risk (see at least Uno [0082]-[0083]: “Further, in the first embodiment, the presence or absence of the high-risk person Pr in the standing state is grasped before the start of the vehicle, and when there is a high-risk person in the standing state, the acceleration of the vehicle ADV is set lower after starting the vehicle than when there is no high-risk person Pr in the standing state. According to such driving restrictions, an increase in the risk of falling can be avoided even if all high-risk people Pr cannot be seated. Further, the passenger compartment monitoring unit 100 permits the vehicle ADV to start after confirming that the high-risk person Pr grips the strap, the grip bar, and the like. Therefore, even if the high-risk person Pr is in a standing state, a fall at the time of starting is unlikely to occur.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation the risk corresponding to a type of mobility is combined with the risk corresponding to standing posture because a high-risk person is determined based on their mobility, and it is further determined whether the high-risk person is standing),
wherein combining includes giving a weight to at least one of the second degree of risk or the third degree of risk (see at least Uno [0058]: “Based on the dynamic fall risk information acquired from the model generation unit 76, the travel restriction unit 77 restricts each control amount of driving operations, braking operations, and steering operations so that the posture of the high-risk person Pr does not become a high-risk posture due to a change in the weight center attributed to vehicle behavior. In addition, the traveling restriction unit 77 increases the degree of restriction of each control amount when there is a high-risk person Pr in a high-risk posture based on the fall risk information, as compared with the case where there is only a high-risk person Pr in a low-risk posture.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation giving a weight to the third degree of risk corresponding to standing posture includes increasing travel restrictions when a high-risk person is in a high-risk standing posture, compared to when the high-risk person is in a low-risk standing posture),
and the status information of the plurality of users includes user location information in the moving object (see at least Uno [0046]: “Specifically, the passenger condition grasping unit 72 continuously monitors the posture of each passenger P and behaviors of each passenger P such as movement (or a position), sitting and leaving in the passenger compartment, and determines whether a high-risk person is in a standing state (i.e., standing position).”; user location information includes passenger movement and position).
Uno fails to expressly disclose information on whether a user is holding an object owned by the user. However, Nienhueser teaches
the standing posture information includes information on whether at least of the plurality of users is holding an object owned by at least one of the plurality of users (see at least Nienhueser [0008]: “Different variables may be included in the determination of the possible injury severity and/or injury probability, on which the safety state is based, such as the seat belt fastening status, the instantaneous sitting posture, whether the occupant is standing, sitting or lying, whether the occupant is moving, whether the occupant is walking around in the vehicle, whether the occupant is looking to the side or to the rear in the driving direction, whether the occupant is holding objects in his or her hand or has objects placed in front of himself or herself, whether the occupant has extended a tray, which may possibly limit his or her deceleration path, whether an occupant is holding on, in particular on a handle, or is standing freely, whether an occupant is carrying baggage on the back, whether an occupant is pregnant or carrying a child, and many other parameters which influence the safety of vehicle occupants during an accident.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation an object owned by the user includes at least baggage of an occupant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Uno with the information taught by Nienhueser with reasonable expectation of success. Nienhueser is directed towards the related field of adapting driving behavior based on passenger data. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Uno with the information taught by Nienhueser to enhance safety of vehicle occupants (see at least Nienhueser [0011]: “The method is carried out, in particular, in a control loop so that a continuous adaptation of the driving behavior is possible, and it is possible to respond promptly to changes of a safety state of a vehicle occupant. In this way, the safety of the at least one vehicle occupant is enhanced.”).
Regarding claim 2, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein the status information of the plurality of users further comprises whether the plurality of users is seated (see at least Uno [0063]: “In S106, a monitoring sequence for monitoring whether or not the high-risk person Pr is seated in the passenger seat which is the destination of the guidance in S105 or the passenger seat which is transferred by the other passenger P is performed”).
Regarding claim 3, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein the profile information comprises age, gender, health status, pregnancy status, disability status, or personal setting information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0038]: “The attribute information such as age, gender, physical characteristics, and smoothness of physical movement can be acquired from the passenger compartment image and the front image.”).
Regarding claim 4, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein the operation mode of the moving object comprises a value for controlling an acceleration/deceleration speed, a distance from a moving object traveling ahead, or a turning angle (see at least Uno [0071]: “In the early deceleration sequence, the timing of starting braking for stopping is earlier than when there is no high-risk person Pr in the standing state. Then, in the stop sequence of S126, the braking force of the vehicle ADV is limited to a deceleration of about a half of the normal stop sequence.”).
Regarding claim 5, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein checking the first degree of risk comprises checking the first degree of risk of the plurality of users using the profile information of the plurality of users or the status information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0060]: “In S102, the fall risk for each passenger P is individually determined based on the attribute information acquired in S101.”).
Regarding claim 7, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein checking the first degree of risk comprises checking a seated or standing state of each user of the plurality of users and checking whether or not each user of the plurality of users is mobility handicapped (see at least Uno [0063]: “In S106, a monitoring sequence for monitoring whether or not the high-risk person Pr is seated in the passenger seat which is the destination of the guidance in S105 or the passenger seat which is transferred by the other passenger P is performed”; [0041]: “The characteristic storage database 56 stores a table for converting the age of passenger P, deterioration of physical fitness, presence/absence of illness during treatment, presence/absence of pregnancy, presence/absence of disability, etc. into risk values.”).
Regarding claim 9, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 7 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein checking the type of the mobility handicap user comprises checking the type of mobility handicap user based on the profile information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0037]: “The registered data that is acquired from the cloud server 90 includes, for example, information whether or not there is a decrease in physical fitness, the type of illness under treatment, the information whether or not there is pregnancy, the information whether or not there is a disability, and the information whether or not such information can be disclosed. These registration data may be stored in advance in the mobile terminal 11 or the IC card 13. The attribute information acquisition unit 54 acquires a plurality of items related to the falling-down risk in the registered data as attribute information for each passenger P boarding the vehicle ADV.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation profile information includes attribute information).
Regarding claim 10, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 9 as explained above. Uno further teaches
wherein checking the third degree of risk comprises checking the standing posture information of the plurality of users (see at least Uno [0055]: “The model generation unit 76 analyzes the posture of the high-risk person Pr when there is a standing high-risk person Pr, and determines the current dynamic fall risk. Specifically, the model generation unit 76 models the high-risk person Pr in a standing state, and estimates the degree of high-risk person Pr swaying according to the rolling of the vehicle ADV, that is, the change in the weight center.”).
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Uno in view of Nienhueser also teach a system for performing the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Uno discloses a moving object (Uno [0021]), a communication device (Uno [0035]), a storage medium (Uno [0044]), and a processor (Uno [0044]). Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Uno in view of Nienhueser also teach an apparatus for performing the method of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, Uno discloses a processor (Uno [0044]) and a memory (Uno [0044]). Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 2 as explained above. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 4 as explained above. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 25, this claim recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 5 as explained above. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uno in view of Nienhueser, and further in view of Golston et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0251122 A1 (hereinafter Golston).
Regarding claim 14, Uno in view of Nienhueser teach all elements of the method according to claim 1 as explained above. Uno in view of Nienhueser fails to expressly disclose controlling a seat posture setting, seat temperature setting, or air conditioner setting based on the profile information of the user. However, Golston teaches
controlling a riding environment of the moving object based on the profile information of the plurality of users, wherein the riding environment of the moving object comprises a seat posture setting value, a seat temperature setting value, or an air conditioner setting value (see at least Golston [0085]: “For example, the occupant arbitrator 146 may determine to increase the temperature in the vehicle for an occupant if increasing the temperature would not exceed a preference threshold (e.g., a temperature comfort threshold) of another occupant with a higher priority. In some approaches, the temperature may be increased up to the temperature comfort threshold of another occupant without exceeding the temperature comfort threshold.”; Golston teaches at least wherein the riding environment comprises an air conditioner setting value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method disclosed by Uno in view of Nienhueser with the air conditioner control taught by Golston with reasonable expectation of success. Golston is directed towards the related field of operating a vehicle based on sensor data. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Uno in view of Nienhueser with the air conditioner control taught by Golston to minimize discomfort for users (see at least Golston [0102]: “Another decision criterion may include minimizing negative experience. For example, the electronic device 102 may seek to maintain a lowest level of discomfort across all occupants (e.g., passengers).”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662