DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “suggesting to the driver, by means of a haptic interface device … and luminous interface device … one or more actions to be performed …”. The originally filed disclosure does not provide a teaching to support the above limitation where both the haptic interface and the luminous interface are used at the same time to suggest an action. The originally filed disclosure only teaches using the two interfaces as an alternative to each other. [0083] of the published originally filed disclosure describes “the light interface device 5 and/or the haptic interface device 13 can selectively be activated/deactivated by the driver”, but only to suggest that the two interfaces can be “activated/deactivated by the driver”, and not to provide support for the use of the two interfaces at the same time. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support to the above limitation and is considered a new matter.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 10 recite the broad recitation “a luminous interface device comprising a plurality of lights arranged on a periphery of a windscreen”, and the claim also recites “the luminous interface device … on a side of the windscreen” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-9, 11-15 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker [US 20210237760] in view of Sweeney et al. [US 20170253254] and Choi et al. [US 20200361482].
As to claim 1) Tucker discloses A method for the performance-enhancing driver assistance of a road vehicle (1) on a track (T); the method comprises the steps of:
determining, at least partially, the conformation of the track (T) on which the road vehicle (1) is located, [0050] generate a map of the track environment for vehicle 2;
determining, in use, the current position (AP), [0051] determine current motion of the vehicle, including current position, by means of a tracking device (3), [0051] determined by positioning system 12;
identifying an optimal trajectory in relation to the conformation of the track (T) and/or the road vehicle (1), [fig. 4, 0053, 0056];
determining, in use, a lateral deviation of the road vehicle (1) from the optimal trajectory, [fig. 4, 0061], and/or an understeer/oversteer condition in a curve (C) and/or a relative position (AP) of the road vehicle (1) with respect to the optimal trajectory by identifying a relative longitudinal position (AP) on the optimal trajectory, [0061];
suggesting to the driver, by means of a haptic interface device arranged in a seat, [0069] haptic feedback delivered through the seat, and a luminous interface device (5, 13), [0062, 0077], arranged in such a way that it is perceivable by the driver and does not obstruct his view of the road, [0077] feedback delivered through an augmented reality headset, one or more actions to be performed in order to vary a lateral and/or longitudinal dynamic of the road vehicle (1) respectively in order to perform a mission which optimises the performance on the track (T), [0064]; respectively according to the lateral deviation and/or the understeer/oversteer condition in curve (C), and/or according to the relative longitudinal (AP) position, [0064] feedback according to the difference between the optimal path and the vehicle’s path, [0070, 0071] including based on lateral difference between the optimal and the current path;
controlling the haptic interface device (13) so as to asymmetrically vibrate so that the driver perceives a right or left vibration, [0070, 0071] example of the operation of the haptic device used is for the steering wheel, wherein the same applies to the haptic feedback devices provided in the possible locations, including in the seat as described in [0069]; and
adjusting the right or left vibration of the haptic interface device (13) to suggest the driver to change the lateral dynamic of the road vehicle (1), [0070, 0071, 0081] optimal amount of feedback is determined for the feedback.
Tucker fails to explicitly disclose wherein the orientation of the road vehicle (1) on the track (T) is determined by the tracking device; wherein the haptic interface device varies intensity based on a magnitude of the lateral deviation of the road vehicle (1) from the optimal trajectory and/or the understeer/oversteer condition in the curve (C) and/or the relative position (AP) of the road vehicle (1) with respect to the optimal trajectory, wherein the luminous interface device (5) comprises a plurality of lights arranged on a periphery of a windscreen (6) of the vehicle (1), the plurality of lights controllable to emit a first color when the vehicle (1) is in a braking zone (BZ) and a second color when the vehicle (1) is in an acceleration zone (AZ); and controlling the luminous interface device (5) to emit the first color or the second color responsive to the current position (AP) of the vehicle (1) indicating that the vehicle (1) is in the braking zone (BZ) or acceleration zone (AZ) of the track (T), respectively.
Sweeney teaches a system for an autonomous vehicle that performs route planning, [0024, 0034, 0044] and performs actions to continue on a route to the destination, [0025, 0031]; wherein the system determines the current location and orientation of the vehicle, [0041]; wherein the system provides haptic feedback that is proportional to the intensity or strength of the maneuver, [0060]; wherein the system further provides visual indication using lighting elements circumscribing the windows, [0011, 0052], to provide indication of acceleration and braking using a multi-colored light elements to generate colors for respective portions of the light bar to indicate each of the maneuvers, [0011, 0053]; wherein the system performs the color coded indication for planned maneuvers, [0084], based on planned vehicle route and GPS information, [0034].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tucker with that of Sweeney so that the system can provide steering suggestion based on the current orientation of the vehicle.
The combination of Tucker and Sweeney fails to disclose wherein the luminous interface device (5) partially divided into a plurality of adjacent sections on a side of the windscreen (6), the adjacent sections configured to light up in a sequential manner from a top portion of the side of the windscreen (6) to a bottom portion of the side of the windscreen (6) according to one of predetermined distances to the braking zone (BZ) or predetermined times to reach the braking zone (BZ), each respective section associated with a different predetermined distance or predetermined time.
Choi teaches a vehicle display device implemented on a front windshield 10 of a vehicle 100, [figs. 1a, 1b, 0051-0053], to provide driving assistance to a vehicle driver, [0107]; wherein an object information on the outside of the vehicle can be displayed in an edge area of the display unit, [0358]; wherein the object information includes distance information with respect to the object, [0079]; wherein the system includes a display portion 1620 divided into sections 1621-1623 that are activated sequentially based on the distance of the vehicle with respect to the other vehicle 1520, [fig. 15, 16, 0483-0486], for guiding the brake control based on the distance information, [0483].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tucker and Sweeney with that of Choi so that the driver can easily judge the urgency of the braking operation based on the activated section of the display portion.
As to claim 2) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 1, wherein the haptic interface device (13) comprises a first vibrating device (18) arranged in the seat configured to accommodate the driver, [0069]; wherein the first vibrating device (18) is controlled so as to vibrate asymmetrically so that the driver perceives the right or left vibration, [0070, 0071].
As to claim 3) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 2, wherein the first vibrating device (18) is controlled so as to suggest to the driver that a first threshold value is exceeded by the lateral deviation from the optimal trajectory, [0063, 0070] feedback provided when the difference is above a threshold value.
As to claim 4) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 3, wherein if the lateral deviation exceeds a first threshold value to the right or left of the vehicle (1), the first vibrating device (18) is controlled so as to vibrate concordantly so that the driver perceives a right or left vibration respectively, [0063, 0070, 0071] feedback provided when the difference is above a threshold value.
As to claim 5) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 3, wherein if the lateral deviation exceeds the first threshold value on the right or left side of the vehicle (1), the first vibrating device (18) is controlled so as to vibrate contralaterally so that the driver perceives a left or right vibration respectively, [0063, 0070, 0071] feedback provided when the difference is above a threshold value.
As to claims 10, 11 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 1, 3, respectively.
Claim(s) 6-8, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Sweeney and Choi as applied to claim 6, above, further in view of Curtis et al. [US 20170072850].
As to claim 6) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 1, wherein the haptic interface device (13) comprises a second vibrating device, in particular arranged in correspondence with the steering (9), [0069] haptic feedback on one or more of seat and steering wheel; wherein the second vibrating device is controlled so as to vibrate while driving around a curve (C) to warn the driver, [0070, 0071], of a condition (9) exceeding a second threshold value, thereby suggesting a reduction in steering angle, [0070, 0071] the directional feedback provided is based on the difference between the current path and the optimal path, wherein if the optimal path is to the left of the driver, the feedback is provided on the left side of the steering wheel indicating the driver steers to the left towards the ideal path.
The combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the condition is an understeer condition.
Curtis teaches a dynamic vehicle notification system that determines an ideal path of the vehicle and provides indication, [0050]; wherein the system provides notification for oversteering and understeering, [0038].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi with that of Curtis so that the system can provide the directional notification in the specific case of understeer as it is one of the finite possible causes of deviations from an ideal path of a vehicle.
As to claim 7) the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi fails to disclose Method according to claim 6, wherein the second vibrating device is controlled so as to vibrate the entire steering (9) of the road vehicle (1).
Curtis teaches a vehicle notification system that determines an ideal path of the vehicle and provides indication, [0050]; wherein the system provides notification by vibrating the steering wheel, [0030].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi with that of Curtis so that the system can provide non-directional notification.
As to claim 8) Tucker discloses Method according to claim 6, wherein the second vibrating device is controlled so as to selectively vibrate a right portion or a left portion of the steering (9) of the road vehicle (1) to indicate to the driver the direction to or from which to correct the steering angle, [0070, 0071].
As to claims 13, 14 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 6, 8, respectively.
Claim(s) 9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Sweeney and Choi as applied to claim 1, above, further in view of Wisselmann et al. [DE 2004030997].
As to claim 9) the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi fails to disclose Method according to claim 1, wherein the haptic interface device (13) comprises a resistive device (20) installed at an accelerator pedal (21) of the road vehicle (1); wherein the resistive device (20) is controlled so as to stiffen at least partially, when exiting a curve (C), the accelerator pedal (21) to warn the driver of an oversteer condition (9) exceeding a third threshold value, thereby suggesting a reduction in pressure on the accelerator pedal (21).
Wisselmann teaches a driver assistance system that calculates an optimal curve for a vehicle, [0009]; wherein the system applies a force on the accelerator pedal counter to the force generated by the driver when the driver is exiting a curve, [0017].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi with that of Wisselmann so that the system can provide active assistance to the driver.
As to claim 15) is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 9.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Sweeney and Choi as applied to claim 10, above, further in view of Abramson et al. [US 20160216130].
As to claim 12) Tucker discloses Vehicle (1) according to claim 11, wherein the first vibrating device (18) comprises at least two different vibrating elements arranged in a right portion and a left portion of the vehicle component respectively, [0070, 0071].
The combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi fails to disclose wherein the vehicle component is the seat; in particular in an outer distal area of a seat sitting and/or in an outer area of a seat back.
Abramson teaches a vehicle system that provides notification to the driver to turn left or right using a vibration unit in the seat wherein to indicate turning left, a left vibration unit in the seat is activated, [1175].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Tucker, Sweeney and Choi with that of Abramson so that the notification can be provided in a way that does not distract the driver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The claims do not strictly require that the haptic interface and the luminous interface are used at the same time to suggest an action.
Response 1: the claims do strictly require that both interfaces for the suggesting, as claimed “suggesting to the driver, by means of a haptic interface device … and a luminous interface device (5, 13) … one or more actions to be performed in order to vary a lateral and/or longitudinal dynamic of the road vehicle”.
Argument 2: A plain reading of the claims and specification shows that at least sequential activations to indicate the action are possible.
Response 2: The rejection is based on the mismatch of what is claimed and what is described. The rejection is not based on what is possibly claimed. The rejection is based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, and what the scope of the claim includes based on the BRI. The BRI of the limitation is that the method suggests to the driver the action to be performed using the haptic and the luminous interface. However, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide support for the above claimed scope of the limitation.
Argument 3: The originally filed disclosure do show both interfaces to be used at the same time. Including [fig. 1], that shows the haptic interface arranged on the steering wheel and the luminous interface being used at the same time. [fig. 7] shows the haptic interface in the seat and the luminous interface being used together.
Response 3: The claimed limitation claims the haptic interface device arranged in a seat. The originally file disclosure clearly makes a distinction of the haptic interface in use as illustrated in [fig. 4] where the both haptic interfaces located in the seat and the steering wheel activated by the arrows emanating from the elements. The originally filed disclosure is clear on how the activation of the interfaces is illustrated in the figures, as is clearly illustrated in all the figures with arrows emanating from the elements to show the activation of the interfaces. [figs. 1 and 7] only show the positioning of the haptic interfaces, and do not show the haptic interfaces in use.
Argument 4: prior arts do not teach the newly added limitations of the claims 1, 10.
Response 4: The Office Action is amended to address the newly added limitations of claims 1, 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688