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 .
Claims
Claims 1-31 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both the existing prior art system in Fig. 1A and also applicant’s improved system in Fig. 2A (whereas specification labels such as “38”)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 500 in Figure 5.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 contains 908 twice labeling the same decision box.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0011]: “The device may be configured to have a lower level of tolerance…” lower level of tolerance in comparison to what?
[0020]: “…wherein the threshold is a value on the classification framework.” What does this mean?
[0029]: “autonomy system 12” should be “autonomy system 14”.
[0031]: is the material mentioned within this paragraph to be considered prior art as well?
[0037]: “user 34” should be “user 32”.
[0038]: “autonomy system 16” should be “autonomy system 14”.
[0039]: “autonomy system 16” should be “autonomy system 14”. (twice)
[0044]: “location of the device 50 above sea level.” should be “location of the mobile device 50 above sea level.”
[0051]: “supervisory mobile telecommunications device 50” is mentioned. Should this be “mobile telecommunications device 50” instead?
[0054]: “…the rear-facing camera 72 of the device 50…” should be “…the rear-facing camera 72 of the mobile device 50…”
[0062]: “…some or all of the parts of the device 50…” should be “…some or all of the parts of the mobile device 50…”
[0065]: No mention of method 500 in Figure 5?
[0069]: “…the threat level is determined by a predictive mechanism applied the mobile device 50…” seems to be missing a word. Applied by the mobile device? Applied to the mobile device?
[0110] : “…indicating that the incident is sever…” should be “…indicating that the incident is over…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: what is the difference between “automatic operation” in line 8 and “automated driving behavior” in line 10? Also, “the detected automated driving behaviour of the vehicle” is mentioned (lines 13-14), but nowhere in the claim is there
Claim 15: “the comparison” should be “a comparison”. Also, should “a threshold” be replaced by “a predetermined threshold”? (See claim 20, below)
Claim 17: it is suggested that “the sensor” in line 4 be replaced by “the at least one sensor” to parallel the vocabulary used in line 2.
Claim 19: it is suggested that lines 2-6 be rewritten: “…the speed of one or each vehicle during the interaction; vehicle braking during the interaction; the proximity of the other vehicle; the direction of travel of the other vehicle; the location of the other vehicle; whether the other vehicle is recognised as operating or capable of operating autonomously; and/or the behaviour of the other vehicle” as : “…speed of one or each vehicle during the interaction; vehicle braking during the interaction; proximity of the other vehicle; direction of travel of the other vehicle; location of the other vehicle; whether the other vehicle is recognised as operating or capable of operating autonomously; and/or the behaviour of the other vehicle” since none of the underlined elements have been listed earlier.
Claim 20: Claim mentions “the predetermined threshold” in line 6. Is this the same threshold mentioned in line 3 of claim 15? If so, then the same vocabulary should be used in both claims. Also, Claim 20 contains “the predetermined threshold” and “the threshold”. Again, vocabulary should be consistent.
Claim 20 also contains the phrase “…is a value on the classification framework.” Shouldn’t this be “…is a value from the class
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the automatic operation" in line 8, “the automated driving behaviour” in line 10, and “the driver” in the last line. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For purposes of examination, “the automatic operation” is interpreted as “automatic operation”, “the automated driving behaviour” is interpreted as “detected automated driving behaviour” (see explanation below), and “the driver” is interpreted as “a driver”.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the detected automated driving behaviour of the vehicle” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Nowhere above in the claim is automated driving behaviour of the vehicle being described as being detected. Therefore, it is assumed that the “automated driving behavior” mentioned in line 10 should be interpreted as “detected automated driving behavior”.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the interior environment…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that this should be “an interior environment…”
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the warning signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that this is “a warning signal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3,5-6,10-11, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0164825 (Matus et al., hence Matus).
As for claim 1, Matus teaches A portable electronic monitoring device (mobile device, mentioned [0013],[0074]) for providing an in-vehicle user warning system (alert to human mentioned in [0072], "driver guidance" mentioned in [0023]) about how a semi-autonomous vehicle (mentioned in [0023], also under BRI this can also be interpreted as an autonomous vehicle that can shift over to manual; see [0072]) is being driven autonomously during a driving period (again see [0072]; the period during which the vehicle is in autonomous mode qualifies), the device being removably and securely mountable to the vehicle ("mobile computing devices", which are "removably and securely mountable to the vehicle", are mentioned in [0013]) and comprising:
a sensor set comprising at least one sensor for sensing an exterior environment outside of the vehicle (vehicle environment sensors 222, see [0014]) and movement of the vehicle within the exterior environment ([0026],[0046]), an interface for receiving user input commands and delivering a warning output (a mobile device would do this; also see [0013] for a list of the other possible devices; also see [0061] which mentions "passenger input", thus implying a mechanism by which users input data into the system);
and a processor operatively connected to the sensor set and the interface (Fig. 2A showing system, mention of processor in [0074]);
wherein the sensor set (vehicle environment sensors 222, see [0014]) is configured to monitor the automatic operation of the semi-autonomous vehicle within the exterior environment during the driving period and to generate sensor data representing driving events concerning the automated driving behaviour of the vehicle with respect to the exterior environment occurring during the driving period; (see paragraph [0025])
the processor being configured to: process the sensor data during the driving period to compare the detected automated driving behaviour of the vehicle in the external environment with a model of expected automated vehicle driving behaviour for a particular driving event (“processor” mentioned in [0074]; Block S110 of the method preferably includes implementing a comparative autonomous model that compares autonomous vehicle behavior to human driver behavior ( e.g., an "average human" behavior determined upon analyzing responses of a population of humans) across different driving maneuvers.[0025]);
identify a dangerous driving event, if the detected automated driving behaviour deviates beyond a threshold from the expected automated vehicle driving behaviour; and if a dangerous driving event has been detected, generate a warning alert via the interface to alert the driver to the occurrence of the dangerous driving event. ("The transition into the overridden state can be triggered based upon an analysis that the autonomous vehicle is in unknown territory, experiencing conditions with an above-threshold tolerance of unknowns, in a compromised state due to a security threat, and/or by any other suitable rationale. The transition into the overridden state can be manually performed ( e.g., a human driver receives an alert and then provides an input that indicates that he/she is taking control of driving). Alternatively, the transition into the overridden state can be automatic, such that the autonomous vehicle stops driving itself ( e.g., pulls over when safe and slows to a stop) and the human operator must intervene." (underlining added) [0072]; alert shown in Fig. 2A)
As for claim 3, Matus teaches wherein the sensor set includes at least one external weather monitoring sensor. ("In variations, generating and/or implementing the sensor-surrounding model can include collecting data from one or more of:...pressure sensors, moisture sensors, light sensors, temperature sensors, any other suitable sensors, location identifying systems ( e.g., GPS) in combination with GPS-based weather services, vehicle subsystem states (e.g., windshield wiper states, AC/heater states, lighting system states, cruise control system states, gear shifting states, overdrive states, etc.), and any other suitable component that can be used to detect road and/or weather conditions that would affect or require sensor performance."[0052].)
As for claim 5, Matus teaches wherein the sensor set includes at least one positional sensor and the at least one positional sensor comprises a gyroscope, a magnetometer, an altimeter, a geolocation sensor or an accelerometer. ("...by leveraging non-generic location data (e.g., GPS data), motion data (e.g., accelerometer data, gyroscope data), and/or other suitable data from a plurality of mobile devices (e.g., non-generalized mobile devices), sensor systems associated with the vehicle and/or surroundings of the vehicle, security diagnostic systems, and any other suitable systems..."[0017])
As for claim 6, Matus teaches wherein the sensor set includes an audio sensor and the sensor data includes audio signals. ( "...The method 100 may additionally or alternatively leverage the availability of additional data captured by the data sources ( e.g., audio data, vehicle sensor data, etc.)…[0011]; also mentioned in "audio sensors ( e.g., to detect sounds indicative of interactions between the autonomous vehicle and other entities/objects, to detect vehicle horn usage, etc.);" [0046]).)
As for claim 10, Matus teaches comprising an Artificial Intelligence (AI) engine configured to operate as a neural network for learning and modelling autonomous behaviour of the vehicle, the processor being operatively connected to the Al engine. ([0025] has a list of steps including collecting data, analysing such, and comparing the autonomous vehicle behavior to "average human behavior" to perform risk analysis (Block S110). Paragraph [0027] discusses generating the comparative autonomous module using machine learning and neural networks.)
As for claim 11, Matus teaches wherein the Al engine comprises a neural network trained to model expected vehicle driving behaviour. (Paragraph [0027] discusses generating the comparative autonomous module using machine learning and neural networks.)
As for claim 24, Matus teaches wherein the sensor set includes at least one sensor for sensing an interior environment of the vehicle. ("...and any other suitable component that can be used to detect human factors ( e.g., pedestrian factors, vehicle occupant factors) conducive to triggering different driving behaviors."[0030]; "...wearable computing devices; biometric monitoring devices ( e.g., to detect physiological states of individuals involved in a traffic situation, to detect cognitive states of individuals involved in a traffic situation, etc.); and/or any other suitable sensors/sensor systems." [0046] (this would cover interior sensors))
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Proximity sensor” (NPL-Wikipedia).
As for claim 2, Matus teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a proximity sensor ("data for evaluation can be acquired from one or more of: proximity sensors ( e.g., to determine proximity of the autonomous vehicle to other objects)"[0046]). Matus does not specifically state which type of proximity sensor is being used, but infrared sensors or camera being used as the proximity sensors is known in the art (See NPL-Wikipedia) and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2012/080741 (Wright et al., hence Wright).
Matus does not specifically teach wherein the portable monitoring device comprises a local wireless communications link to a personal telecommunications device which provides a user interface to the monitoring device. (Fig. 2A shows something that might be a smartphone, but “personal telecommunications device” is not mentioned in the specification.) However, Wright teaches wherein the portable monitoring device comprises a local wireless communications link to a personal telecommunications device which provides a user interface to the monitoring device. (“Preferably, the mobile device is arranged to interface with an external device wirelessly, for example via a Bluetooth® connection. Advantageously, this removes the need for the mobile device to be physically connected to the external device. As will be appreciated, following a driving period, a user may want to leave the vehicle and so take a personal mobile telecommunication device with them, and so a wireless interface with such an external device obviates the inconvenience of physically detaching and then subsequently re-attaching the mobile device.” (pg.10, lines 11-17))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a personal telecommunications device as a possible user interface, as outlined by Wright, in system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the personal telecommunications device would just need to have the relevant application software uploaded on it.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 2588983 (Ayeman).
As for claim 7, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the interface comprises a touchscreen and a loudspeaker. However, Ayeman teaches wherein the interface comprises a touchscreen and a loudspeaker. ("The display device 312 can include an LCD, LED, or AMOLED display, a touchscreen, a haptic display such as a vibrating pad (e.g., for a blind rider), or a loudspeaker to provide audible output to a passenger" [000118])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a touchscreen and a loudspeaker as a possible user interface, as outlined by Ayeman, in the system of Matus. The motivation would be to add further methods of interaction with the system for the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Head-up display” (NPL-Wiki-HUD).
As for claim 8, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the interface comprises a projector configured to project images onto a surface of the vehicle to create a head-up display. However, this is known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See NPL-Wiki-HUD.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (US 10,861,325 B2) Lorenz.
As for claim 9, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the monitoring device is a telecommunications device comprising a wireless communications engine for communicating with a remote server, wherein the wireless communications engine is configured to receive information regarding the external environment through which the vehicle is travelling. However, Lorenz teaches wherein the monitoring device is a telecommunications device comprising a wireless communications engine for communicating with a remote server, wherein the wireless communications engine is configured to receive information regarding the external environment through which the vehicle is travelling. ("For example, the data may be obtained from a weather server. The server may be a different server to a server that, in preferred embodiments, performs the method of the present invention. The weather data may be from a repository storing data indicative of one or more regions of the navigable network currently considered to be affected by one or more adverse weather conditions, optionally wherein the data comprises data indicative of the type or types of adverse weather condition affecting the or each region. The repository may be stored by a remote server."[Col. 12, lines 57-67])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a wireless telecommunication device to obtain weather information, as outlined by Lorenz, in the system of Matus. The motivation would be to add a method to obtain weather data for the system.
Claims 12-13, 15, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus.
As for claim 12, Matus teaches wherein the neural network is trained using sensor data collected from manual and/or automated operation of the vehicle. Matus does not specifically teach that the sensor data was collected prior to the current driving period, but this is a mechanism for training neural networks and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As for claim 13, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the sensor data collected prior to the current driving period is data that has been validated as being sensed in one or more driving periods during which no dangerous driving events were identified. However, this is known in the art of training neural networks, where “the correct image/data” is used to train the neural network (a first training set), and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As for claim 15, Matus teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine a threshold for the particular driving event (“thresholds” are mentioned in [0018] as being something that the calculated risks are being compared to. Being able to pick out the correct threshold implies the system being able to determine a threshold for a particular driving event.)
and if the comparison between the detected automated driving behaviour and the model of expected automated vehicle driving behaviour for the particular driving event indicates that a deviation has occurred: compare the deviation and the threshold to determine if the deviation is beyond the threshold. ("For example, correction of deviations in proper vehicle operation can be initiated, using interfaces to control systems of the autonomous vehicle, in response to detection of one or more risks surpassing defined thresholds."[0018] (if interpreting "risk" under BRI as level of deviation from expected trajectory) )
As for claim 31, Matus teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if a dangerous driving event is detected, determine a time point before which resumption of manual control of the vehicle is necessary, and to generate the warning signal before the time point at the latest. (“The transition into the overridden state can be triggered based upon an analysis that the autonomous vehicle is in unknown territory, experiencing conditions with an above-threshold tolerance of unknowns, in a compromised state due to a security threat, and/or by any other suitable rationale. The transition into the overridden state can be manually performed ( e.g., a human driver receives an alert and then provides an input that indicates that he/she is taking control of driving). Alternatively, the transition into the overridden state can be automatic, such that the autonomous vehicle stops driving itself ( e.g., pulls over when safe and slows to a stop) and the human operator must intervene. However, transitioning into an overridden state can alternatively be conducted in any other suitable manner."[0072] Matus does not specifically mention determining a specific time point by which the transfer back to manual must be completed, but this is part of the concept behind determining the alert or shift back to manual and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of ”Vehicle Trajectory Prediction using Non-linear Input-Output Time Series Neural Network” (NPL-Sushmitha.)
As for claim 14, Matus does not specifically teach wherein, based on the neural network and sensor data, the Al engine is configured to generate the model of expected automated vehicle driving behaviour for the particular driving event. However, NPL-Sushmitha teaches wherein, based on the neural network and sensor data, the Al engine is configured to generate the model of expected automated vehicle driving behaviour for the particular driving event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a neural network to generate a model of automated vehicle driving behavior, as outlined by NPL-Sushmitha, in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success, since NPL-Sushmitha teaches a method which can be applied using a computer algorithm.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2010/0102972 (Middelkauff)
As for claim 16, Matus teaches wherein the threshold is determined based on the driving event ([0018]), but does not specifically teach the threshold [is also] based on at least one other parameter selected from the group consisting of: a reaction time of the driver; a level of autonomy of the vehicle; condition of the vehicle; a road type; a weather condition; and one or more user settings. However, Middelkauff teaches the threshold [is also] based on at least one other parameter selected from the group consisting of: a reaction time of the driver; a level of autonomy of the vehicle; condition of the vehicle; a road type; a weather condition; and one or more user settings. ("An exemplary driver inattention detection system according to principles of the invention may be calibrated. Calibration may ensure that steering signals are accurately processed. Calibration may also set a minimum threshold for steering signal activity, below which driver inattention is assumed."[0020])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a driver reaction detection system as outlined in Middelkauff in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Middelkauff involves an electro-mechanical device which can be added to a vehicle.
As for claim 17, Matus, as modified, also teaches wherein the at least one other parameter comprises reaction time of the driver, and wherein the sensor set includes at least one sensor for sensing an interior environment of the vehicle, the processor being configured to determine the reaction time of the driver based on current and/or historical sensor data sensed from the sensor for sensing the interior environment of the vehicle. (Middlekauff: "A driver inattention condition may be determined to exist if an active steering count is below the determined minimum threshold steering count. In such case, a first alarm perceptible to a driver may be activated upon determining that a driver inattention condition exists."[0025] (here the steering wheel with rotary encoder attached are being used as a real-time sensor to determine level of attention of driver, which can be considered as another way of measuring the reaction time. And since this is the steering wheel plus attached mechanism mounted in the occupant cabin of the vehicle, it can be considered as "sensing an interior environment of the vehicle")
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus in light of Middekauff as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2015/0344030 Al (Damerow et al., hence Damerow).
As for claim 18, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the driving event comprises a vehicle manoeuvre and wherein the threshold is based on one or more of: vehicle speed during the manoeuvre; vehicle braking during the manoeuvre; and vehicle steering angle during the manoeuvre. However, Damerow teaches wherein the driving event comprises a vehicle manoeuvre (such as shown in Fig. 7) and wherein the threshold is based on one or more of: vehicle speed during the manoeuvre; (see [0053] for an example involving vehicle speed) vehicle braking during the manoeuvre (See [0048], which mentions “alternative trajectories” which could involve braking); and vehicle steering angle during the manoeuvre. (“heading angles, masses, etc.”[0050] (which would include a vehicle steering angle).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a risk analysis system as outlined in Damerow in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success since Damerow’s system can be implemented via information from sensors and software to implement the algorithm.
As for claim 19, Matus does not specifically teach wherein the driving event comprises an interaction with another vehicle and wherein the threshold is based on one or more of: wherein the driving event comprises an interaction with another vehicle and wherein the threshold is based on one or more of: the direction of travel of the other vehicle; the location of the other vehicle; whether the other vehicle is recognised as operating or capable of operating autonomously; and/or the behaviour of the other vehicle. However, Damerow teaches wherein the driving event comprises an interaction with another vehicle (See Fig. 7, where the situation is one car crossing an intersection and avoiding a collision with vehicles.) and wherein the threshold is based on one or more of:
the speed of one or each vehicle during the interaction; vehicle braking during the interaction; the proximity of the other vehicle; ("For the calculation of the values in the risk map, we use a continuous risk function based on risk indicators, which calculate the risk from the states of the ego-vehicle and the other traffic participant for one moment in time. The risk e.g. depends on the distance and the velocities of the involved traffic participants at one point in time, but can be extended to include e.g. heading angles, masses, etc. The risk map will then exhibit pronounced maxima at certain points of ego-car driven trajectory length and behavior parameters. A favorable behavior would then be one that avoids these maxima.”[0050])
the direction of travel of the other vehicle; (see previous, where "heading angles" are mentioned)
the location of the other vehicle; (see previous, where "distance…of the involved traffic participants…can be extended to include…etc." is mentioned)
whether the other vehicle is recognised as operating or capable of operating autonomously; (could be included under the "...can be extended to include…etc." clause)
and/or the behaviour of the other vehicle. (See above; “velocities and headings of "the involved traffic participants" would cover this.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a risk analysis system as outlined in Damerow in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success since Damerow’s system can be implemented via information from sensors and software to implement the algorithm.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of JP 2012-85747 (Morikawa et al., hence Morikawa).
As for claim 26 Matus does not specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to: determine a required attention state of the driver with respect to the current operation of the semi- autonomous vehicle within the exterior environment; determine a required attention state of the driver with respect to the current operation of the semi- autonomous vehicle within the exterior environment; compare the current attention state of the driver and the required attention state of the driver; and generate a warning alert signal if the current attention state deviates beyond a threshold value from the required attention state. However, Morikawa teaches wherein the processor is configured to: ("All or some of the components constituting the attention state determination apparatus described above are realized as a general-purpose processor (semiconductor circuit) that executes a computer program. Alternatively, it is realized as a dedicated processor in which such a computer program and a processor are integrated. For example, the attention state determination apparatus according to the first embodiment includes a general-purpose processor"[pg. 26).) determine a required attention state of the driver with respect to the current operation of the semi- autonomous vehicle within the exterior environment; (predetermined threshold mentioned: "When the magnitude of the eyeball retention related potential is smaller than a predetermined threshold, it may be determined that the user's attention is distracting."(Pg. 7)); compare the current attention state of the driver and the required attention state of the driver; (see previous) and generate a warning alert signal if the current attention state deviates beyond a threshold value from the required attention state. (warning mentioned in S808, page 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a driver reaction detection system as outlined in Morikawa in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success since Morikawa’s eye reaction detection system can be implemented as an add-on.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matus, in light of Morikawa, as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US 2020/0148225 Al (Stefan).
As for claim 27, Matus, as modified, does not specifically teach wherein the required attention state is determined based on one or more vehicle parameters. However, Stefan teaches wherein the required attention state is determined based on one or more vehicle parameters. ('It is the object of the present invention to provide a system for vehicles, which enables an evaluation of the traffic situation of a vehicle to be provided independently of the individual condition of the driver in a simple manner, which can then be used as an estimate of an objectively required attentiveness of drivers."[0009]; "In a further embodiment, the at least one sensor unit for receiving the associated third input signals is designed to collect information on the status of the vehicle. Vehicle status information, such as the current speed of the vehicle, can often have a significant effect on the required attention of the driver and can often be retrieved via the vehicle bus, e.g. CAN bus (Controller Area Network, CAN), in a simple manner from corresponding sensors, memories or control units in the vehicle."(underlining added)[0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use an estimated required driver attentiveness system such as in Stefan, combined with the driver reaction detection system as outlined in Morikawa, and implement both in the system of Matus, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Morikawa goes into detail as to how to measure the exact level of driver attentiveness, while Stefan goes into detail as to how to determine what the driver attentiveness should be under the driving circumstances.
As for claim 28, Matus, as modified, also teaches wherein the one or more vehicle parameters includes a level of autonomy of the vehicle, a vehicle speed, a vehicle occupancy level, and/or a quality of autonomous vehicle operation. (Stefan: "In one exemplary embodiment the vehicle status conditions comprise at least one of the following: the vehicle speed, vehicle acceleration, steering angle, activation states of driver assistance systems. For example, the non-activation status of driver assistance systems present requires a higher concentration from the driver, as do acceleration situations, for example during overtaking maneuvers, or particularly fast driving on the highway, especially in heavy traffic."(underlining added)[0027]; note that "activation states of driver assistance systems" can be interpreted as "level of autonomy of the vehicle")
As for claim 29, Matus, as modified, also teaches wherein the required attention state is determined based on one or more external environment parameters. (Stefan: sensor data being recorded in four different categories; "They are processed and the data obtained are compressed to form a set of attention requirement parameters, each of which quantifies the situation with regard to the category."[0012]. what data is collected: "In one embodiment, the at least one sensor unit for receiving the associated first input signals is designed to collect traffic situation-related information in an environment around the vehicle."[0022]; ([0023] has a list of the sensors used)
As for claim 30, Matus, as modified, also teaches wherein the one or more external environment parameters includes a road type, a road quality, a traffic density, a weather type, a classification of how urban or rural the environment is, driving behaviour of other vehicles in the vicinity, and/or the presence of one or more dangerous driving events and/or other threats. (Stefan: "In one embodiment, the at least one sensor unit for receiving the associated first input signals is designed to collect traffic situation-related information in an environment around the vehicle. This can involve the positions and speeds and dimensions of other vehicles, the detection of traffic signs, e.g. warning signs or speed limit signs, the detection of the positions of buildings, trees, pedestrians, etc., the width of the road or the characteristics of the road surface, as well as traffic information received via radio or the internet."(underlining added) [0022].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23, and 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached on (571) 270-7016. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661