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 .
Status of Claims
The communication is in response to application 18/074,028 filed on 03/19/2026. Claims 1-6, 9-10 and 12-15 have been amended. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7, 9-16 are pending and examined in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time”. Should recite “in response to a determination that the reaction of the driver is not detected for the predetermined time. Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. KR1020220008974 and KR1020220008973, filed on 01/21/2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments submitted on 10/14/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver.
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(s) 1, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji discloses a method for changing a control authority of an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
determining to allocate a control authority of the autonomous vehicle to a driver for a driving operation (The mode decider changes the driving mode of the host vehicle to a driving mode in which the task is severer when the task related to the decided driving mode is not executed by the driver – See at least ¶58. The mode decider allows the HMI controller to perform control, i.e. allocate a control authority, for prompting the driver to shift the driving to manual driving of mode using the HMI – See at least ¶59);
checking whether a reaction of the driver is detected for a predetermined time during the driving operation (Also, when the driver does not respond even though a prescribed period of time elapses after the HMI controller is allowed to perform control for prompting the driver to perform manual driving or when it is estimated that the driver does not perform manual driving – See at least ¶59).
Tsuji fails to disclose in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, outputting a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle; analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful within a specific response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds.
However, Shannon teaches:
in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, outputting a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle (Responsive to the passenger support system detecting such an event, the passenger support system is configured to cause the speaker to emit an audible support message (in accordance with the preferences of the passenger). The support message can include a prompt for response, may be informative as to the detected event, may include instructions for the passenger to follow, and so forth – See at least column 5, lines 10-15);
analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful (Described herein are various technologies pertaining to providing support messages to a visually impaired passenger of an autonomous vehicle. With more specificity, the various technologies present a support message to the passenger based on a profile of the passenger, wherein the profile of the passenger specifies that the support message is to be provided audibly to the passenger (e.g., the passenger may have a visual impairment) – See at least column 1, lines 30-37. In FIG. 5, the passenger provides a vocal command via a microphone independent of receiving a support message. The passenger can state a trigger word or phrase configured to cause to the passenger support system to perform a task. For instance, where the passenger states “please provide assistance” the passenger support system can be configured to provide a response support message with at least one choice selectable by the passenger. In another example, when the passenger states “help” the passenger support system can be configured to establish a voice communication channel with the interface device. The passenger support system can be further configured to inform the passenger, via a speaker, that a voice communication channel is being established – See at least column 10, lines 18-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsuji and include the feature of in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, outputting a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle and analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful, as Taught by Shannon, to determine what is occurring in the autonomous vehicle and / or the environment exterior of the autonomous vehicle.
The combination of Tsuji and Shannon fail to disclose determining, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable.
However, Hiei teaches determining, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable (The feedback server can be further configured to determine a driver state of the driver in the manual driving mode, determine an environmental driving condition of the vehicle, and establish a baseline behavior of the driver as a function of the driver state and the environmental driving condition. The feedback server cart be further configured to prompt the driver to switch to the autonomous driving mode in real-time, and display the feedback report in real-time on the external device – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji and Shannon and include the feature of determining, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable, as Taught by Hiei, to improve a driving quality of a human driver by providing feedback in real-time or based on historic driving performance.
The combination of Tsuji, Shannon and Hiei fail to disclose when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocating the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation.
However, Silver teaches when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocating the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation (For instance, Level 0 has no automation and the driver makes all driving-related decisions. The lowest semi-autonomous mode, Level 1, includes some drive assistance such as cruise control. Level 2 has partial automation of certain driving operations, while Level 3 involves conditional automation that can enable a person in the driver's seat to take control as warranted. In contrast, Level 4 is a high automation level where the vehicle is able to drive without assistance in select conditions. And Level 5 is a fully autonomous mode in which the vehicle is able to drive without assistance in all situations. The architectures, components, systems and methods described herein can function in any of the semi or fully-autonomous modes, e.g., Levels 1-5, which are referred to herein as autonomous driving modes. Thus, reference to an autonomous driving mode includes both partial and full autonomy – See at least ¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon and Hiei and include the feature of when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocating the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation, as Taught by Silver, to perform an action in response to determining the adverse weather or road condition in the environment around the vehicle.
The combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fail to disclose analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful within a specific response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds because the autonomous-driving art recognized driver response and takeover timing as known operational parameters, with response intervals ranging from several seconds up to approximately 30 seconds. Selecting a response timeframe within this known range would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice to allow sufficient time for driver response while enabling a timely determination regarding continuation of autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji discloses an autonomous vehicle, the autonomous vehicle comprising:
at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a camera, a radar device, and a Lidar sensor, configured to obtain driving information of the autonomous vehicle, or detect an inside or outside object of the autonomous vehicle (vehicle system includes a camera, a radar device, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor – See at least ¶30. The physical object recognition device performs a sensor fusion process on detection results from some or all of the camera, the radar device, and the LIDAR sensor included in the external detector to recognize a physical object – See at least ¶34); and
a controller, wherein the controller is configured to (Controller – See at least ¶8):
determine to allocate a control authority of the autonomous vehicle to a driver for a driving operation (The mode decider changes the driving mode of the host vehicle to a driving mode in which the task is severer when the task related to the decided driving mode is not executed by the driver – See at least ¶58. The mode decider allows the HMI controller to perform control, i.e. allocate a control authority, for prompting the driver to shift the driving to manual driving of mode using the HMI – See at least ¶59);
check whether a reaction of the driver is detected for a predetermined time during the driving operation (Also, when the driver does not respond even though a prescribed period of time elapses after the HMI controller is allowed to perform control for prompting the driver to perform manual driving or when it is estimated that the driver does not perform manual driving – See at least ¶59).
Tsuji fails to disclose in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, output a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle; analyze a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful within a specific response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds.
However, Shannon teaches:
in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, output a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle (Responsive to the passenger support system detecting such an event, the passenger support system is configured to cause the speaker to emit an audible support message (in accordance with the preferences of the passenger). The support message can include a prompt for response, may be informative as to the detected event, may include instructions for the passenger to follow, and so forth – See at least column 5, lines 10-15);
analyze a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful (Described herein are various technologies pertaining to providing support messages to a visually impaired passenger of an autonomous vehicle. With more specificity, the various technologies present a support message to the passenger based on a profile of the passenger, wherein the profile of the passenger specifies that the support message is to be provided audibly to the passenger (e.g., the passenger may have a visual impairment) – See at least column 1, lines 30-37. In FIG. 5, the passenger provides a vocal command via a microphone independent of receiving a support message. The passenger can state a trigger word or phrase configured to cause to the passenger support system to perform a task. For instance, where the passenger states “please provide assistance” the passenger support system can be configured to provide a response support message with at least one choice selectable by the passenger. In another example, when the passenger states “help” the passenger support system can be configured to establish a voice communication channel with the interface device. The passenger support system can be further configured to inform the passenger, via a speaker, that a voice communication channel is being established – See at least column 10, lines 18-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsuji and include the feature of in response to a determination that the reaction is not detected for the predetermined time, outputting a vocal inquiry to the driver via an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle and analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful, as Taught by Shannon, to determine what is occurring in the autonomous vehicle and / or the environment exterior of the autonomous vehicle.
The combination of Tsuji and Shannon fail to disclose determine, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable.
However, Hiei teaches determine, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable (The feedback server can be further configured to determine a driver state of the driver in the manual driving mode, determine an environmental driving condition of the vehicle, and establish a baseline behavior of the driver as a function of the driver state and the environmental driving condition. The feedback server cart be further configured to prompt the driver to switch to the autonomous driving mode in real-time, and display the feedback report in real-time on the external device – See at least ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji and Shannon and include the feature of determining, based on real-time monitoring of at least one external condition including a weather condition or a road condition, and the analyzed mental or conscious condition, whether autonomous driving is maintainable, as Taught by Hiei, to improve a driving quality of a human driver by providing feedback in real-time or based on historic driving performance.
The combination of Tsuji, Shannon and Hiei fail to disclose when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocate the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation.
However, Silver teaches when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocate the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation (For instance, Level 0 has no automation and the driver makes all driving-related decisions. The lowest semi-autonomous mode, Level 1, includes some drive assistance such as cruise control. Level 2 has partial automation of certain driving operations, while Level 3 involves conditional automation that can enable a person in the driver's seat to take control as warranted. In contrast, Level 4 is a high automation level where the vehicle is able to drive without assistance in select conditions. And Level 5 is a fully autonomous mode in which the vehicle is able to drive without assistance in all situations. The architectures, components, systems and methods described herein can function in any of the semi or fully-autonomous modes, e.g., Levels 1-5, which are referred to herein as autonomous driving modes. Thus, reference to an autonomous driving mode includes both partial and full autonomy – See at least ¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon and Hiei and include the feature of when the autonomous driving is determined to be maintainable, allocating the control authority to the autonomous vehicle to continue the driving operation at an autonomous driving level 3 to 5 without executing a fallback stopping operation, as Taught by Silver, to perform an action in response to determining the adverse weather or road condition in the environment around the vehicle.
The combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fail to disclose analyzing a mental or conscious condition of the driver by determining whether a vocal response from the driver to the vocal inquiry is successful within a specific response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a response timeframe of 10 to 30 seconds because the autonomous-driving art recognized driver response and takeover timing as known operational parameters, with response intervals ranging from several seconds up to approximately 30 seconds. Selecting a response timeframe within this known range would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice to allow sufficient time for driver response while enabling a timely determination regarding continuation of autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 16, Tsuji discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program configured to perform the method defined in one of claim 1 (Non-transitory medium – see at least ¶43).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Eiji Oba, US 20210286357 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Oba, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose determining a first risk level of a physical condition of the driver; determining a second risk level in response to one of the mental condition or the conscious condition of the driver; and determining a driving proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level, and wherein the determining the second risk level comprises sensing the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle.
However, Oba teaches:
determining a first risk level of a physical condition of the driver (The driver status determination unit obtains, as the driver status, biometric information about the driver such as the pulsation – See at least ¶209);
determining a second risk level in response to one of the mental condition or the conscious condition of the driver (Monitor unit provides the determination processing unit with the driver status including a consciousness state – See at least ¶55. The determination processing unit determines whether this event raises a certain driving risk due to continuous automatic driving – See at least ¶96); and
determining a driving proficiency level of the driver (When automatic driving is used, the degree of proficiency in driving is different depending on the driver, and it is considered that it is very important to monitor the status of the driver – See at least ¶5. The analysis of the line of sight as described below is effective as means for determining the awakened state of the driver. More specifically, in the operation during actual driving, the driver does not see each and every piece of environment information for a certain period of time. In reality, in accordance with the situation and also in accordance with the experience of the driver – See at least ¶153),
wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level (The monitor unit can monitor the state of the driver according to various methods such as, for example, recognizing the posture of the face of the driver – See at least ¶44. Monitor unit provides the determination processing unit with the driver status including a consciousness state – See at least ¶55. More specifically, in the operation during actual driving, the driver does not see each and every piece of environment information for a certain period of time. In reality, in accordance with the situation and also in accordance with the experience of the driver – See at least ¶153. Even in a case where a driver's driving ability defect is observed, there is a possibility of a state of emergency, and therefore, the automatic driving controller makes setting necessary to execute exception processing that exceptionally enables autonomous driving – See at least ¶212), and
wherein the determining the second risk level comprises sensing the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle (The driver monitor device monitors the driver by using various kinds of sensors for detecting the awakened state of the driver. For example, the driver monitor device captures an image of the face of the driver using a camera – See at least ¶169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the features of determining first a risk level of a physical condition of the driver; determining a second risk level in response to one of a mental condition or a conscious condition of the driver; and determining a driving proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level, and wherein the determining the second risk level comprises sensing the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Oba, to develop mechanical or systematic solutions to reduce the risk of danger in automatic driving system (See at least ¶8 of Oba).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose determine a first a risk level of a physical condition of the driver; determine a second risk level in response to one of the mental condition or the conscious condition of the driver; and determine a driving proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level, and wherein the controller is configured to sense the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level.
However, Oba teaches:
determine a first risk level of a physical condition of the driver (The driver status determination unit obtains, as the driver status, biometric information about the driver such as the pulsation – See at least ¶209);
determine a second risk level in response to one of the mental condition or the conscious condition of the driver (Monitor unit provides the determination processing unit with the driver status including a consciousness state – See at least ¶55. The determination processing unit determines whether this event raises a certain driving risk due to continuous automatic driving – See at least ¶96); and
determine a driving proficiency level of the driver (When automatic driving is used, the degree of proficiency in driving is different depending on the driver, and it is considered that it is very important to monitor the status of the driver – See at least ¶5. The analysis of the line of sight as described below is effective as means for determining the awakened state of the driver. More specifically, in the operation during actual driving, the driver does not see each and every piece of environment information for a certain period of time. In reality, in accordance with the situation and also in accordance with the experience of the driver – See at least ¶153),
wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level (The monitor unit can monitor the state of the driver according to various methods such as, for example, recognizing the posture of the face of the driver – See at least ¶44. Monitor unit provides the determination processing unit with the driver status including a consciousness state – See at least ¶55. More specifically, in the operation during actual driving, the driver does not see each and every piece of environment information for a certain period of time. In reality, in accordance with the situation and also in accordance with the experience of the driver – See at least ¶153. Even in a case where a driver's driving ability defect is observed, there is a possibility of a state of emergency, and therefore, the automatic driving controller makes setting necessary to execute exception processing that exceptionally enables autonomous driving – See at least ¶212), and
wherein the controller is configured to sense the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level (The driver monitor device monitors the driver by using various kinds of sensors for detecting the awakened state of the driver. For example, the driver monitor device captures an image of the face of the driver using a camera – See at least ¶169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the features of determine first a risk level of a physical condition of the driver; determine a second risk level in response to one of a mental condition or a conscious condition of the driver; and determine a driving proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the first risk level, the second risk level, and the driving proficiency level, and wherein the controller is configured to sense the conscious condition of the driver using a camera installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level, as taught by Oba, to develop mechanical or systematic solutions to reduce the risk of danger in automatic driving system (See at least ¶8 of Oba).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, in view of Eiji Oba, US 20210286357 A1, as applied to claims 2 and 13 above and further in view of Sicconi et al., US 20190213429 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver, Oba and Sicconi, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Oba fails to explicitly disclose wherein the determining the second risk level comprises analyzing the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle.
However, Sicconi teaches wherein the determining the second risk level comprises analyzing the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle (An Al powered decision engine determines the type of driver of inattention: if distracted, it alerts the driver with sounds or voice prompts selected and paced based on the level of urgency. Responsiveness of the user is tracked to determine length and richness of the dialog with the driver. A microphone and a speaker are used to verbally communicate with the driver – See at least ¶54. Speakers are installed in a vehicle – See at least ¶174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Oba and include the feature of wherein the determining the second risk level comprises analyzing the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle, as taught by Sicconi, to provide an autonomous vehicle the ability to control the vehicle in unexpected situations (See at least ¶2 of Sicconi).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Oba fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to analyze the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level.
However, Sicconi teaches wherein the controller is configured to analyze the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level (An Al powered decision engine determines the type of driver of inattention: if distracted, it alerts the driver with sounds or voice prompts selected and paced based on the level of urgency. Responsiveness of the user is tracked to determine length and richness of the dialog with the driver. A microphone and a speaker are used to verbally communicate with the driver – See at least ¶54. Speakers are installed in a vehicle – See at least ¶174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Oba and include the feature of wherein the controller is configured to analyze the mental condition of the driver by having a conversation with the driver through an artificial intelligence (AI) speaker installed in the autonomous vehicle for the determination of the second risk level, as taught by Sicconi, to provide an autonomous vehicle the ability to control the vehicle in unexpected situations (See at least ¶2 of Sicconi).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, as applied to claim 1 and 9 above and further in view of Ryosuke Mori, US20220316988A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Mori, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose further comprising using the autonomous vehicle at the autonomous driving level 3 to 5.
However, Mori teaches further comprising using the autonomous vehicle at the autonomous driving level 3 to 5 (The vehicle is autonomously driven by the control system. The autonomous driving level may, for example, be from level 3 to 5 – See at least ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the feature of comprising using the autonomous vehicle at the autonomous driving level 3 to 5, as taught by Mori, to improve the driving safety of autonomous vehicles (See at least ¶5).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose further comprising using the autonomous vehicle in any one of autonomous driving levels 3 to 5.
However, Mori teaches further comprising using the autonomous vehicle at the autonomous driving level 3 to 5 (The vehicle is autonomously driven by the control system. The autonomous driving level may, for example, be from level 3 to 5 – See at least ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tsuji and include the feature of comprising using the autonomous vehicle in any one of autonomous driving levels 3 to 5, as taught by Mori, to improve the driving safety of autonomous vehicles (See at least ¶5).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, as applied to claim 1 and 9 above and further in view of Fields et al., US 20210394767 A1, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Fields, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose determining a third risk level in response to the weather condition; determining a fourth risk level in response to the road condition; and determining a driving proficiency level of a driver of an autonomous vehicle, wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level.
However, Fields teaches:
determining a third risk level in response to the weather condition (It may be desirable for an autonomous vehicle to shift from one level of autonomous capability to another, such as due to changing weather conditions – See at least ¶27);
determining a fourth risk level in response to the road condition (It may be desirable for an autonomous vehicle to shift from one level of autonomous capability to another, such as due to changing road conditions – See at least ¶27); and
determining a driving proficiency level of a driver of an autonomous vehicle (A driving capability profile may take into account human operator parameters, which are variable parameters regarding the human operator that may be detected by the vehicle or inferred from other information (e.g., driving history, driving habits) – See at least ¶33),
wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level (Display of notification may be conditioned on a driving capability profile of the human operator of the vehicle in comparison to human operator parameters detected by the vehicle and/or the environmental risk profile of the vehicle. For example, if the driving capability profile of a human operator of the vehicle indicates that the driver has a poor level of skill in extreme weather conditions, then the arbiter may determine that it is safer if the vehicle navigates the extreme weather autonomously rather than under manual control of the human operator – See at least ¶71. The notification is an in-vehicle notification requesting adjustment based on factors such as the human operator's driving capability profile, human operator parameters, and potential road hazards. The in-vehicle notification may therefore be an on-demand change to the vehicle's autonomous capabilities based on changing conditions – See at least ¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the feature of determining a third risk level in response to the weather condition; determining a fourth risk level in response to the road condition; and determining a driving proficiency level of a driver of an autonomous vehicle, wherein the allocating of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level, as taught by Fields, to reduce varying levels of risk in operating autonomous vehicles (See at least ¶2 of Fields).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose determine a third risk level in response to the weather condition; determine a fourth risk level in response to the road condition; and determine a driving proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level.
However, Fields teaches:
determine a third risk level in response to the weather condition (It may be desirable for an autonomous vehicle to shift from one level of autonomous capability to another, such as due to changing weather conditions – See at least ¶27);
determine a fourth risk level in response to the road condition (It may be desirable for an autonomous vehicle to shift from one level of autonomous capability to another, such as due to changing road conditions – See at least ¶27); and
determine a driving proficiency level of the driver (A driving capability profile may take into account human operator parameters, which are variable parameters regarding the human operator that may be detected by the vehicle or inferred from other information (e.g., driving history, driving habits) – See at least ¶33),
wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level (Display of notification may be conditioned on a driving capability profile of the human operator of the vehicle in comparison to human operator parameters detected by the vehicle and/or the environmental risk profile of the vehicle. For example, if the driving capability profile of a human operator of the vehicle indicates that the driver has a poor level of skill in extreme weather conditions, then the arbiter may determine that it is safer if the vehicle navigates the extreme weather autonomously rather than under manual control of the human operator – See at least ¶71. The notification is an in-vehicle notification requesting adjustment based on factors such as the human operator's driving capability profile, human operator parameters, and potential road hazards. The in-vehicle notification may therefore be an on-demand change to the vehicle's autonomous capabilities based on changing conditions – See at least ¶73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the feature of determine a third risk level in response to the weather condition; determine a fourth risk level in response to the road condition; and determine a driver proficiency level of the driver, wherein the allocation of the control authority to the autonomous vehicle is performed according to a result of a determination of the third risk level, the fourth risk level, and the driving proficiency level, as taught by Fields, to reduce varying levels of risk in operating autonomous vehicles (See at least ¶2 of Fields).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, in view of Fields et al., US 20210394767 A1, as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Hoshiya Kazumi, JP 2018185587 A, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver, Fields and Kazumi, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Fields fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driving proficiency level is determined using at least one of an accident occurrence risk, an acceleration/deceleration pattern, and a lane change pattern.
However, Kazumi teaches wherein the driving proficiency level is determined using at least one of an accident occurrence risk, an acceleration/deceleration pattern, and a lane change pattern (The driving operation characteristic is a characteristic which can also be referred to as driving habit or tendency and includes acceleration and deceleration by the driver – See at least ¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Fields and include the feature of wherein the driving proficiency level is determined using at least one of an accident occurrence risk, an acceleration/deceleration pattern, and a lane change pattern, as taught by Kazumi, to assess a driver’s capability for operating an autonomous vehicle (See at least ¶4 of Kazumi).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Fields fails to explicitly disclose wherein the accident occurrence risk is determined using at least one of a risk of collision with a preceding vehicle, a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle, and a risk of collision with a following vehicle.
However, Kazumi teaches wherein the accident occurrence risk is determined using at least one of a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle (In step S6, the presence of the other vehicles VA, VB, VC and VD of the caution level 4 in the predetermined range from the host vehicle VA – See at least ¶28. Examiner notes as shown in Figure 1 of Kazumi, vehicle VA, VB, VC and VD are shown to be on side of host vehicle 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Fields and include the feature of wherein the accident occurrence risk is determined using at least one of a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle, as taught by Kazumi, to warn a driver of a vehicle when the distance between the host and side vehicle becomes equal to or less than a threshold distance (See at least ¶4 of Kazumi).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji et al., US 20230391332 A1, in view of Shannon et al., US 10562541B1, in view of Hiei et al., US 20180118219 A1, and in view of Silver et al., US 20210132628 A1, as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Hoshiya Kazumi, JP 2018185587 A, hereinafter referred to as Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei, Silver and Kazumi, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine a driver proficiency level using at least one of an accident occurrence risk, an acceleration/deceleration pattern, and a lane change pattern.
However, Kazumi teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine a driver proficiency level using at least one of an acceleration/deceleration pattern (The driving operation characteristic is a characteristic which can also be referred to as driving habit or tendency and includes acceleration and deceleration by the driver – See at least ¶12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the feature of wherein the controller is configured to determine a driver proficiency level using at least one of an acceleration/deceleration pattern, as taught by Kazumi, to assess a drivers capability for operating an autonomous vehicle (See at least ¶4 of Kazumi).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver fails to explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine the accident occurrence risk using at least one of a risk of collision with a preceding vehicle, a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle, and a risk of collision with a following vehicle.
However, Kazumi teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the accident occurrence risk using at least one of a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle, (In step S6, the presence of the other vehicles VA, VB, VC and VD of the caution level 4 in the predetermined range from the host vehicle VA. Examiner notes as shown in Figure 1 of Kazumi, vehicle VA, VB, VC and VD are shown to be on side of host vehicle 1 – See at least ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tsuji, Shannon, Hiei and Silver and include the feature of wherein the accident occurrence risk is determined using at least one of a risk of collision with a side-lane vehicle, as taught by Kazumi, to warn a driver of a vehicle when the distance between the host and side vehicle becomes equal to or less than a threshold distance (See at least ¶4 of Kazumi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights