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 Arguments
35 USC § 103
The applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 14 to incorporate limitations from the dependent claims. The arguments have been fully considered based upon the amendments to the claims but are not found to be persuasive. The applicant argues that the incorporation of the dependent claims overcomes in two ways. First, the applicant argues that the third level of haptic or audible information is not taught. However, Shaikh teaches audible outputs (see at least C6 Ln27) and Fung teaches both haptic and audible outputs (see at least P0208). The applicant continues by arguing Fung does not teach the control in response to detected surrounding information, walking through the example shown in Fung Fig. 26 and stating that “a change in a vehicle control setting is not the same as detected surrounding information”. However, the applicant’s description, Fig. 26, and Fung P0206 confirm “the audible or haptic indicator in response to a change (e.g., decrease) in power steering assistance)” (emphasized in applicant’s argument) is a subsequent result of the detected body state index, which is an example of surrounding information. Fung also describes audible warnings of potential collisions as another example of surrounding information (see at least P0302 and Fig. 75).
The applicant’s second argument relies on the third level of assistance not being taught, but as discussed above, it is taught as a result of a detected body state index and as a result of a potential collision. Chan teaches the thresholding of auditory and visual information which is an obvious integration for assessing driver performance and this, in combination with the finite number of solutions for assistance capabilities taught by Fung would be an obvious application.
Examination According to Amendments
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the amended claims filed September 2, 2025.
Claims 1, 5, 9 – 11, 13, 14, and 18 are pending and elected for examination.
Claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8, 12, 15 – 17, and 19 – 20 have been cancelled by the applicant.
The examiner cautions that the present submission could not be clearly read in the digital format submitted. Because the content had already been submitted in previous materials, the examiner was able to read the content, but any digital recordation of the material was limited. The examiner recommends that any further submissions be checked for scannability using a PDF Object Character Recognition (OCR) software to ensure future readability. Submission of a clean copy alongside any amended copy could also be considered to ensure proper submission.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application.
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.
Shaik + Fung + Laur + Chan
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over patent US 10449968 B2 published October 2019, hereinafter Shaikh, in view of patent publication US 20160152233 A1 published June 2016, hereinafter Fung, in further view of US 9,618,963 B2, hereinafter Laur, in further view of patent publication US 20210304313 A1 filed October 2017, hereinafter Chan.
Regarding Claim 1, Shaikh teaches A method for controlling a driver assistance function, the method comprising:
receiving as input from a driver at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information, the body-reaction state information related to a driver's situation cognition and reaction and the manipulation disability state information being for physical disability in relation to manipulation of a vehicle (see at least Shaikh C13 Ln66: driver identification data received via the user interface 108, C6 Ln1: the user may actively and/or passively input data and/or information to the adaptive driver assistance apparatus, and C5 Ln 42: the driver identification data may identify one or more developmental disabilities and/or cognitive impairments associated with the driver the examiner interprets cognitive impairment as an example of situation cognition and reaction and Shaikh C3 Ln20: Some individuals with ASD may express functional difficulties (e.g., easy distraction, physical clumsiness,…) the examiner interprets functional difficulties as an example of physical disability);
determining, via a controller for each of a plurality of assistance level based on the obtained information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different assistance function to assist a driver (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln8: generate different driver records corresponding to different drivers of the vehicle 100 of FIG. 1 and including the corresponding driver assistance data for respective ones of the different drivers the examiner interprets different driver records and the corresponding driver data as an example of different driver assistance functions); and
conducting via a controller control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance levels (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln25: the control signal(s) generated by the assistance controller 144 of FIG. 1 are based on the driver assistance data generated by the driver requirements generator and C14 Ln47: the control signal(s) may initiate and/or invoke the autonomous driving apparatus the examiner interprets invocation of the autonomous driving apparatus as an example controlling the vehicle and the basis on driver assistance data generated by the driver requirements generator as an example of determination based on the assistance level) the plurality of assistance levels comprise at least two of:
a second level for providing with a path recommendation avoiding a specific turn (see at least Shaikh C13 Ln22: may generate a route requirement indicating that the route presented to the driver must not include two consecutive turns the examiner interprets the requirement not to include two consecutive turns as an example of avoiding a specific turn);
a third level for activating haptic or auditory output in response to detected surrounding information (see at least Shaikh C6 Ln27: The user interface 108 of FIG. 1 also includes one or more example output device(s) 120 via which the adaptive driver assistance apparatus 102 of FIG. 1 presents data and/or information in graphical, textual and/or audible form to the user);
a fifth level for preparing all the time information for emergency report (see at least Shaikh C7 Ln27: may be associated with one or more time(s) (e.g., time stamped) at which the data and/or signal(s) were collected the examiner interprets time stamped data and signals as examples of time information and Fig. 2 displays that that navigation information may be output in element 120 which is an example of reporting).
Shaikh describes the system focused on developmentally disabled and cognitively impaired drivers. These disabilities are noted in the background information of Shaikh to include physical disability, but the embodiments do not explicitly name such physical limitations. Thus, Shaikh’s invention is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatorily, for the claimed driver state information subject matter.
Shaikh teaches adjusting the driving records for different drivers but does not explicitly teach making a determination for each one of a plurality of assistance levels and does not explicitly teach pedal sensitivity adjustment or enlarged output ranges. Shaikh does teach speed limiting by adjusting road recommendations (C6 Ln30). However, Fung supplements the feedback teachings of Shaikh and further teaches receiving as input from a driver (see at least Fung P0104: include provisions for receiving input from a user… input device 111 could be used to selectively tum on or off some monitoring devices but not others) at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information, the body-reaction state information related to a driver's situation cognition and reaction and the manipulation disability state information being for physical disability in relation to manipulation of a vehicle (see at least Fung P0007: receiving monitoring information and determining a body state index for a driver, where the body state index characterizes drowsiness and P0003: When drowsy or inattentive drivers may have delayed reaction times the examiner interprets drowsiness indicating reaction times as an example of reaction state information, which in Fung’s invention are assessed through performance following driver inputs to vehicle controls);
determining, via a controller for each of a plurality of assistance level based on the obtained information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different assistance function to assist a driver, and wherein whether or not to apply each assistance level is individually determined (see at least Fung P0125: It will be understood that each of these vehicle systems may be standalone systems or may be integrated with ECU 150. For example, in some cases, ECU 150 may operate as a controller for various components of one or more vehicle systems. In other cases, some systems may comprise separate dedicated controllers and Fig. 5 showing separate assistance functions for each obtained driver state information, and Fig. 7 Elements 456, 458, and 460 determining body state, control parameters, and operating the vehicle using those control parameters, P0157: a control parameter may be an operating parameter that is used to determine if a particular function should be activated for a given vehicle system and P0158: a control parameter can be determined using vehicle system information as well as the body state index determined during step 456 the examiner interprets control parameters for particular functions as outlined in Fig. 7 and P0157 as examples of individual determination of assistance with the control parameter based on the body state index which the examiner interprets as an example of basing on obtained information); and
conducting via a controller control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance level (see at least Fung Fig. 7 Element 460 controlling vehicle systems)
the first level accompanied by pedal sensitivity control (see at least Fung P0232: increase the sensitivity of the brake assist) and speed limiting (see at least Fung P0260: automatically reducing a cruising speed in a cruise control system based on driver monitoring information and Fig 55 depicting reducing cruising speed by a percentage); a third level for activating haptic or auditory output in response to detected surrounding information (see at least Fung P0208: an audible or haptic indicator could be used to alert the driver, P0302: In step 4702, response system 199 may select visual and/or audible warnings for alerting a driver of a potential forward collision. In some cases, a warning light may be used. In other cases, an audible noise, such as a beep, could be used and Fig. 5 column 422); and a fourth level for enlarging a sensor-based alert output range (see at least Fung P0303: For higher warning intensity coefficients (greater than 0%) the warning intensity may be increased beyond the predetermined level. In some cases, the luminosity of visual indicators can be increased. In other cases, the volume of audible warnings can be increased);
the determining step comprises a step of determining to apply the third and the fourth levels (the third level being haptic or auditory feedback, see at least Fung P0208 and Fig 5, and fourth level being enlarging sensor output range, see at least Fung P0303) and determining to apply the first level (the first level being pedal sensitivity (see Fung P0232) and speed limiting (see Fung P0260)).
PNG
media_image1.png
597
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
534
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fung Figures 5 and 7 depicting a plurality of assistance levels controlled based on driver body state information
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaikh to incorporate the method of Fung in the same field of invention to add additional sensor and control adaptations for the advantage of responding to an individual driver (Fung P0002).
Selecting the third (haptic or auditory output) and fourth (expanding the output range) levels of assistance or the first (pedal sensitivity and speed limiting) level of assistance would be “obvious to try” from a finite number of solutions for assistance capabilities. This combination would also be reasonably tested with an expectation of success as the systems are implemented through software and could be selected or deselected through Boolean operators in code to perform together functions that have been described individually and in combination. Thus, this particular combination could be reached in the course of trying a finite number of possible solutions, for the advantage of selecting options that reduce potential harm of drivers in various conditions (Fung P0003).
The combination of Shaikh and Fung teach the body state information inputs, assistance determination, and control based on the assistance level limitations. A further unifying reference is taught by Laur, teaching receiving as input from a driver at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information, the body-reaction state information related to a driver's situation cognition and reaction (see at least Laur C2 Ln58: signals received from the sensor 20 indicate that the state-of awareness 18 of the operator 14 is attentive, or 60 exhibits varying degrees of not being attentive such as inattentive, sleeping, or intoxicated the examiner interprets degrees of attentiveness as examples of situation cognition);
determining, via a controller for each of a plurality of assistance level based on the obtained information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different assistance function to assist a driver, and wherein whether or not to apply each assistance level is individually determined (see at least Laur C1 Ln41: The controller is also configured to modify the control-rule based on the state-of awareness of the operator and C3 Ln27: the control-rule may include: a minimum-following-distance 30A for a particular roadway or a particular section of the roadway 16, a recommended-speed 30B such as a legal-speed limit for a particular roadway or a particular section of the roadway 16; rules or guidelines for a route-selection 30C and/or a lane-selection 30D; and a preferred value of an acceleration-rate 30E for accelerating from or to, for example, an intersection or traffic light the examiner interprets inclusion of the exemplary control-rules as an example of the determination to apply that assistance level as stipulated by the details of such a rule)); and
conducting via a controller control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance level (see at least Laur Fig. 2 Element 12 Vehicle Controls and C2 Ln5: the system 10 may be configured for partial automation where, for example, only the speed of the host-vehicle 12 is controlled, which may or may not include automated operation of the brakes on the host vehicle 12, and the steering of the host-vehicle 12 is the responsibility of the operator. While varying degrees or levels of autonomous or automated operation are contemplated, the teachings presented herein are especially useful for fully-automated operation of the host-vehicle 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further informed the combination Shaikh and Fung to incorporate the teachings of Laur in the same field of invention to control system adaptations for the advantage of responding to a driver’s level of attentiveness with specific control-rule adjustments (see at least Laur Abstract and Fig. 2).
Shaikh does not explicitly name age as a collected input, and Fung describes brake assistance activation for older drivers (see P0110) but does not elaborate on the details of age information. However, Chan further teaches receiving as input (see at least Chan P0148: A user may enter commands and information into the computer 510 through input devices) the driver's age information as the body-reaction state information (see at least Chan Fig. 2 wherein age is listed in element 112, Driver Provided Data and P0050: each profile also includes a number of fields indicative of demographic and/or personal information (.e.g., gender, age…)) receiving as input information by body part as the body-reaction state information and the manipulation disability state information (see at least Chan P0067: he or she has a particular level of vision impairment (e.g., shortsightedness or poor night vision), motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle the examiner interprets vision impairment and injury as examples of body part disability states for eyes and limbs respectively)
receiving as input at least one of the driver's visual-acuity information (see at least Chan P0067: may determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of vision impairment (e.g., shortsightedness or poor night vision) and auditory- acuity information as the body-reaction state information; and
receiving as input disabled body part information as the manipulation disability state information (see at least Chan P0067: may determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of… motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle))
Chan further teaches activation of driver assistance (see at least Chan P0033) in case where at least one of the visual-acuity information and the auditory-acuity information is below a predetermined threshold (see at least Chan P0067: he or she has a particular level of vision impairment the examiner interprets particular level as indicating a number of thresholds)… and in case where the disabled body part information is input (see at least Chan P0067: determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of … motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle the examiner interprets determining from the driver as an example of information being input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Laur to incorporate the method of Chan in the same field of invention to receive age, vision, and body data as characteristics of the driver for the advantage of creating a driver profile to assess driver performance and mitigate risk based on driver characteristics (Chan P0003).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Shaikh further teaches conducting a reaction test in the vehicle as so selected by the driver (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln46: an operational mode in which the assistance engine 114 is to evaluate a driving performance (e.g., a simulated driving performance based on a test route and/or test commands…) the examiner interprets the evaluation of driving performance in a test as an example of a reaction test), wherein determining whether to apply a respective assistance level is made with a result of the reaction test taken further into consideration (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln10: based on such an evaluation, generates, manages and/or controls driver assistance data the examiner interprets controlling driver assistance data as an example of selection of the assistance level).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan teaches the limitations of claim 9 and the determining step comprises a step of determining to apply the first, the second, the fourth and the fifth levels (the first level being pedal sensitivity (see Fung P0232) and speed limiting (see Fung P0260), the second level being path recommendation (see Shaikh C13 Ln22), the fourth level being sensor output range enlargement (see Fung P0303), and the fifth level being including time information (see Shaikh C7 Ln27)). Shaikh further teaches selection in case where the reaction speed is not enough according to the result of the test (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln10: The assistance engine 114 of FIG. 1 evaluates the driving capabilities of a driver of the vehicle 100 of FIG. 1 and, based on such an evaluation, generates, manages and/or controls driver assistance data the examiner interprets). Shaikh does not explicitly teach a response for the reaction speed being not enough, but Fung further establishes where the reaction speed is not enough (see at least Fig. 5 Col 423 compensate for driver’s slower reaction time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan to further incorporate the method of Fung to respond to reaction speed for the advantage of for the advantage of responding to an individual driver and reducing the harm of delayed reaction times (Fung P0002).
Selecting the first (pedal sensitivity and speed limiting) level, second (path recommendation) level, fourth (sensor output range enlargement) level, and fifth (including time information) level of assistance would be “obvious to try” from a finite number of solutions. This combination would also be reasonably tested with an expectation of success as the systems are implemented through software and could be selected or deselected through Boolean operators in code to perform together functions that have been described individually and in combination. Thus, this particular combination could be reached in the course of trying a finite number of possible solutions, for the advantage of selecting options that reduce potential harm of drivers in various conditions (Fung P0003).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan teaches the limitations of claim 9 and the determining step comprises a step of determining to apply the second, the fourth, and the fifth levels (the second level being path recommendation (see Shaikh C13 Ln22), the fourth level being sensor output range enlargement (see Fung P0303), and the fifth level being including time information (see Shaikh C7 Ln27)). Shaikh further teaches selection in case where the reaction speed is enough according to the result of the test (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln10: The assistance engine 114 of FIG. 1 evaluates the driving capabilities of a driver of the vehicle 100 of FIG. 1 and, based on such an evaluation, generates, manages and/or controls driver assistance data). Shaikh does not explicitly teach a response for the reaction speed being enough, but Fung further establishes where the reaction speed is not enough (see at least Fig. 5 Col 423 compensate for driver’s slower reaction time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan to further incorporate the method of Fung to respond to reaction speed for the advantage of for the advantage of responding to an individual driver and reducing the harm of delayed reaction times (Fung P0002).
Selecting the second (path recommendation) level, fourth (sensor output range enlargement) level, and fifth (including time information) level of assistance would be “obvious to try” from a finite number of solutions. This combination would also be reasonably tested with an expectation of success as the systems are implemented through software and could be selected or deselected through Boolean operators in code to perform together functions that have been described individually and in combination. Thus, this particular combination could be reached in the course of trying a finite number of possible solutions, for the advantage of selecting options that reduce potential harm of drivers in various conditions (Fung P0003).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Laur teaches the limitations of claim 1 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program (see at least Shaikh C9 L37: Commands and/or command data ( e.g., normal commands, test commands, adapted commands, etc.) generated by the command generator 132 of FIG. 1 may be of any type, form and/or format, and may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium).
Regarding Claim 14, Shaikh teaches A vehicle comprising:
an input device (see at least Shaikh C6 Ln12: the input device(s) 118 of the user interface 108 of FIG. 1) configured to receive, as input from a driver, at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information (see at least Shaikh C13 Ln66: driver identification data received via the user interface 108 and C5 Ln 42: the driver identification data may identify one or more developmental disabilities and/or cognitive impairments associated with the driver the examiner interprets cognitive impairment as an example of situation cognition and reaction) the body-reaction state information related to the driver's situation cognition and reaction and the manipulation disability state information being for physical disability in relation to manipulation of a vehicle (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln50: determine whether the driver is developmentally disabled and/or cognitively impaired the examiner interprets cognitive impairment as an example of situation cognition and reaction and Shaikh C3 Ln20: Some individuals with ASD may express functional difficulties (e.g., easy distraction, physical clumsiness,…) the examiner interprets functional difficulties as an example of physical disability);
a first controller (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln7: the driver record generator 142 of FIG. 1 the examiner interprets the record generator as an example of a controller) configured to determine, for each of a plurality of assistance levels based on the received information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different driver assistance function to assist a driver (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln8: generate different driver records corresponding to different drivers of the vehicle 100 of FIG. 1 and including the corresponding driver assistance data for respective ones of the different drivers the examiner interprets different driver records and the corresponding driver data as an example of different driver assistance functions); and
a second controller (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln25: the assistance controller 144 of FIG. 1) configured to conduct control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance levels (see at least Shaikh C14 Ln25: the control signal(s) generated by the assistance controller 144 of FIG. 1 are based on the driver assistance data generated by the driver requirements generator 140 of FIG. 1, and/or based on the driver record generated by the driver record generator 142 of FIG. 1. and C14 Ln47: the control signal(s) may initiate and/or invoke the autonomous driving apparatus the examiner interprets invocation of the autonomous driving apparatus as an example controlling the vehicle and the basis on driver assistance data generated by the driver requirements generator as an example of determination based on the assistance level)
the plurality of assistance levels comprise at least two of: a second level for providing with a path recommendation avoiding a specific turn (see at least Shaikh C13 Ln22: may generate a route requirement indicating that the route presented to the driver must not include two consecutive turns the examiner interprets the requirement not to include two consecutive turns as an example of avoiding a specific turn);
a third level for activating haptic or auditory output in response to detected surrounding information (see at least Shaikh C6 Ln27: The user interface 108 of FIG. 1 also includes one or more example output device(s) 120 via which the adaptive driver assistance apparatus 102 of FIG. 1 presents data and/or information in graphical, textual and/or audible form to the user);
a fifth level for preparing all the time information for emergency report (see at least Shaikh C7 Ln27: may be associated with one or more time(s) (e.g., time stamped) at which the data and/or signal(s) were collected the examiner interprets time stamped data and signals as examples of time information and Fig. 2 displays that that navigation information may be output in element 120 which is an example of reporting).
Shaikh describes the system focused on developmentally disabled and cognitively impaired drivers. These disabilities are noted in the background information of Shaikh to include physical disability, but the embodiments do not explicitly name such physical limitations. Thus, Shaikh’s invention is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatorily, for the claimed driver state information subject matter.
Shaikh teaches adjusting the driving records for different drivers but does not explicitly teach a determination and control controller for each one of a plurality of assistance levels. However, Fung teaches an input device (see at least Fung P0104: input device 111 could comprise one or more buttons, switches, a touch screen, touch pad, dial, pointer or any other type of input device) configured to receive, as input from a driver, at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information the body-reaction state information related to the driver's situation cognition and reaction and the manipulation disability state information being for physical disability in relation to manipulation of a vehicle (see at least Fung P0007: receiving monitoring information and determining a body state index for a driver, where the body state index characterizes drowsiness and P0003: When drowsy or inattentive drivers may have delayed reaction times the examiner interprets drowsiness indicating reaction times as an example of reaction state information, which in Fung’s invention are assessed through performance following driver inputs to vehicle controls);
a first controller configured to determine, for each of a plurality of assistance levels based on the received information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different driver assistance function to assist a driver , and wherein whether or not to apply each assistance level is individually determined (see at least Fung P0125: It will be understood that each of these vehicle systems may be standalone systems or may be integrated with ECU 150. For example, in some cases, ECU 150 may operate as a controller for various components of one or more vehicle systems. In other cases, some systems may comprise separate dedicated controllers and Fig. 5 showing separate assistance functions for each obtained driver state information, and Fig. 7 Elements 456, 458, and 460 determining body state, control parameters, and operating the vehicle using those control parameters, P0157: a control parameter may be an operating parameter that is used to determine if a particular function should be activated for a given vehicle system and P0158: a control parameter can be determined using vehicle system information as well as the body state index determined during step 456 the examiner interprets control parameters for particular functions as outlined in Fig. 7 and P0157 as examples of individual determination of assistance with the control parameter based on the body state index which the examiner interprets as an example of basing on obtained information); and
a second controller configured to conduct control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance levels (see at least Fung Fig. 7 Element 460 controlling vehicle systems).
the first level accompanied by pedal sensitivity control (see at least Fung P0232: increase the sensitivity of the brake assist) and speed limiting (see at least Fung P0260: automatically reducing a cruising speed in a cruise control system based on driver monitoring information and Fig 55 depicting reducing cruising speed by a percentage); a third level for activating haptic or auditory output in response to detected surrounding information (see at least Fung P0208: an audible or haptic indicator could be used to alert the driver, P0302: In step 4702, response system 199 may select visual and/or audible warnings for alerting a driver of a potential forward collision. In some cases, a warning light may be used. In other cases, an audible noise, such as a beep, could be used and Fig. 5 column 422); and a fourth level for enlarging a sensor-based alert output range (see at least Fung P0303: For higher warning intensity coefficients (greater than 0%) the warning intensity may be increased beyond the predetermined level. In some cases, the luminosity of visual indicators can be increased. In other cases, the volume of audible warnings can be increased);
the first controller is further configured to: determine to apply the third and the fourth levels (the third level being haptic or auditory feedback, see at least Fung P0208 and Fig 5, and fourth level being enlarging sensor output range, see at least Fung P0303) and determine to apply the first level (the first level being pedal sensitivity (see Fung P0232) and speed limiting (see Fung P0260)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaikh to incorporate the method of Fung in the same field of invention to add additional sensor and control adaptations for the advantage of responding to an individual driver (Fung P0002).
Selecting the third (haptic or auditory output) and fourth (expanding the output range) levels of assistance or the first (pedal sensitivity and speed limiting) level of assistance would be “obvious to try” from a finite number of solutions for assistance capabilities. This combination would also be reasonably tested with an expectation of success as the systems are implemented through software and could be selected or deselected through Boolean operators in code to perform together functions that have been described individually and in combination. Thus, this particular combination could be reached in the course of trying a finite number of possible solutions, for the advantage of selecting options that reduce potential harm of drivers in various conditions (Fung P0003).
The combination of Shaikh and Fung teach the body state information inputs, assistance determination, and control based on the assistance level limitations. A further unifying reference is taught by Laur, teaching an input device configured to receive, as input from a driver, at least one of body-reaction state information and manipulation disability state information the body-reaction state information related to the driver's situation cognition and reaction and the manipulation disability state information being for physical disability in relation to manipulation of a vehicle (see at least Laur C2 Ln58: signals received from the sensor 20 indicate that the state-of awareness 18 of the operator 14 is attentive, or 60 exhibits varying degrees of not being attentive such as inattentive, sleeping, or intoxicated the examiner interprets degrees of attentiveness as examples of situation cognition);
a first controller configured to determine, for each of a plurality of assistance levels based on the received information, whether to apply a respective assistance level, wherein each assistance level is set with a different driver assistance function to assist a driver , and wherein whether or not to apply each assistance level is individually determined (see at least Laur C1 Ln41: The controller is also configured to modify the control-rule based on the state-of awareness of the operator and C3 Ln27: the control-rule may include: a minimum-following-distance 30A for a particular roadway or a particular section of the roadway 16, a recommended-speed 30B such as a legal-speed limit for a particular roadway or a particular section of the roadway 16; rules or guidelines for a route-selection 30C and/or a lane-selection 30D; and a preferred value of an acceleration-rate 30E for accelerating from or to, for example, an intersection or traffic light the examiner interprets inclusion of the exemplary control-rules as an example of the determination to apply that assistance level as stipulated by the details of such a rule)); and
a second controller configured to conduct control of the vehicle based on the determined one or more assistance levels (see at least Laur Fig. 2 Vehicle Controls and C2 Ln5: the system 10 may be configured for partial automation where, for example, only the speed of the host-vehicle 12 is controlled, which may or may not include automated operation of the brakes on the host vehicle 12, and the steering of the host-vehicle 12 is the responsibility of the operator. While varying degrees or levels of autonomous or automated operation are contemplated, the teachings presented herein are especially useful for fully-automated operation of the host-vehicle 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further informed the combination Shaikh and Fung to incorporate the teachings of Laur in the same field of invention to control system adaptations for the advantage of responding to a driver’s level of attentiveness with specific control-rule adjustments (see at least Laur Abstract and Fig. 2).
Shaikh does not explicitly name age as a collected input, and Fung describes brake assistance activation for older drivers (see P0110) but does not elaborate on the details of age information. However, Chan further teaches receiving as input (see at least Chan P0148: A user may enter commands and information into the computer 510 through input devices) the driver's age information as the body-reaction state information (see at least Chan Fig. 2 wherein age is listed in element 112, Driver Provided Data and P0050: each profile also includes a number of fields indicative of demographic and/or personal information (.e.g., gender, age…)) receiving as input information by body part as the body-reaction state information and the manipulation disability state information (see at least Chan P0067: he or she has a particular level of vision impairment (e.g., shortsightedness or poor night vision), motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle the examiner interprets vision impairment and injury as examples of body part disability states for eyes and limbs respectively)
receiving as input at least one of the driver's visual-acuity information (see at least Chan P0067: may determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of vision impairment (e.g., shortsightedness or poor night vision) and auditory- acuity information as the body-reaction state information; and
receiving as input disabled body part information as the manipulation disability state information (see at least Chan P0067: may determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of… motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle))
Chan further teaches activation of driver assistance (see at least Chan P0033) in case where at least one of the visual-acuity information and the auditory-acuity information is below a predetermined threshold (see at least Chan P0067: he or she has a particular level of vision impairment the examiner interprets particular level as indicating a number of thresholds)… and in case where the disabled body part information is input (see at least Chan P0067: determine… from the driver that he or she has a particular level of … motor skill impairment (e.g., due to a handicap or injury), and/or other medical conditions and/or physical characteristics that may limit how he or she can safely operate a vehicle the examiner interprets determining from the driver as an example of information being input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Laur to incorporate the method of Chan in the same field of invention to receive age, vision, and body data as characteristics of the driver for the advantage of creating a driver profile to assess driver performance and mitigate risk based on driver characteristics (Chan P0003).
Shaik + Fung + Laur + BCS
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaikh in view of Fung, Laur, and Chan, in further view of the 2016 BCS Glossary of Computing and ICT.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Shaikh further teaches a step of conducting the control of the vehicle according to default settings (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln38: The normal mode may be indicative of an operational mode in which navigation data generated, controlled and/or managed via the navigation engine 112 of FIG. 1 (e.g., normal, standard and/or default navigation data) need not be adapted to assist a driver of the vehicle 100 the examiner interprets a normal mode that is not adapted as an example of control using default settings).
Shaikh teaches that the default settings are enabled when the driver is not developmentally disabled and/or cognitively impaired but does not explicitly teach a case when the driver does not satisfy an elder-age threshold or due to a lack of data input. However, it is known in the art that default settings are invoked in the absence of explicit instructions to the contrary. Specifically, the BCS Glossary of Computing and ICT teaches that defaults may be selected in the absence of explicit instructions to the contrary, such as in case where the age information is not input, or the information by body part is not input nor does the age information satisfy a predetermined elder-age threshold.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan to incorporate the default settings as is known in the art and described in the BCS Glossary of Computing and ICT for the advantage of unburdening users from continually being required to enter inputs.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan teaches the limitations of claim 15 and Shaikh further teaches the first controller is further configured to control the second controller to conduct the control of the vehicle according to default settings (see at least Shaikh C10 Ln38: The normal mode may be indicative of an operational mode in which navigation data generated, controlled and/or managed via the navigation engine 112 of FIG. 1 (e.g., normal, standard and/or default navigation data) need not be adapted to assist a driver of the vehicle 100 the examiner interprets a normal mode that is not adapted as an example of control using default settings).
Shaikh teaches that the default settings are enabled when the driver is not developmentally disabled and/or cognitively impaired but does not explicitly teach a case when the driver does not satisfy an elder-age threshold or due to a lack of data input. However, it is known in the art that default settings are invoked in the absence of explicit instructions to the contrary. Specifically, the BCS Glossary of Computing and ICT teaches that defaults may be selected in the absence of explicit instructions to the contrary, such as in case where the age information is not input, or the information by body part is not input nor does the age information satisfy a predetermined elder-age threshold.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Shaikh, Fung, and Chan to incorporate the default settings as is known in the art and described in the BCS Glossary of Computing and ICT for the advantage of unburdening users from continually being required to enter inputs.
Conclusion
Related References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11148658 B2 by Tiziani teaches user settings in driver profiles and management methods for such settings (see at least C11 Ln26)
US 10,569,649 by Munaoka teaches a driver attentiveness system that applies particular vehicle systems based on time and driver requirements (see at least Fig. 7)
US 8,698,639 B2 is a prior patent by Fung also describing a driver behavior monitoring and response system to control the ADAS.
Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSE RIDDER whose telephone number is (703)756-1675. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
ROSE . RIDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664