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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection for some of the claims is made in view of the amendments and newly found prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 3, the limitation “a driver” should be amended to “[[a]]the driver” as it is now previously defined in the amendment of claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claim should be amended to read “from the manual driving mode, in which the autonomous vehicle is controlled by a steering wheel, a brake pedal, and an acceleration pedal, to [[an]]the autonomous driving mode” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Oba (US 2017/0364070) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221).
Re claim 10, Gordon discloses an autonomous vehicle comprising:
a steering wheel (see at least para. 56 for steering control in manual mode);
a brake pedal (see at least para. 56 for braking control in manual mode);
an acceleration pedal (see at least para. 56 for throttle control in manual mode);
one or more sensors (sensors 153); and
an autonomous vehicle control system including a non-transitory storage device (processor 103 with hard drive 133) storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to:
receive, from a driver information database, one or more driver experience parameters associated with a driver of the autonomous vehicle during a drive (see at least para. 88-90 for retrieving driver profile while the vehicle is driving on the roadway);
collect sensor data using the one or more sensors during a drive (see at least para. 53-70 for collecting data from a variety of sensors 153 for determining current roadway conditions);
detect, using the sensor data, a driving condition representing a risk of damage (see at least para. 77-85 for examples of determining unsafe driving conditions); and
in response to detecting the driving condition representing the risk of damage, perform a first change between an autonomous navigation mode and a manual driving mode (see at least para. 86 for switching vehicle from manual mode to autonomous mode);
Gordon is silent regarding:
detect that the driving condition has ended in response to detecting that the driving condition has ended;
perform a second change between the autonomous navigation mode and the manual driving mode;
Oba teaches detect that the driving condition has ended; and in response to detecting that the driving condition has ended, deactivate the autonomous navigation mode (see at least para. 67-91 for terminating automatic driving when the driver’s driving ability is sufficiently maintained or recovered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Gordon with the features of Oba because it mitigates risk by preventing the driver from reactivating manual driving mode when an unsafe driving condition is ongoing.
Modified Gordon is silent regarding:
update the driver experience parameters with driving conditions and actions taken by the driver during current driving trip.
Vaughn teaches creating, modifying, and managing a driver profile based on measured driver behavior (see at least para. 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Gordon with the features of Vaughn because it enables a driver profile to be current by dynamically updating with measured driver behavior instead of a static profile that can be outdated as it does not change since creation.
Re claim 11, Gordon further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to issue a command to avoid a particular obstacle identified in or near a road on which the autonomous vehicle is travelling (see at least para. 56, 60, 62, for obstacle avoidance while operating in autonomous mode).
Re claim 12, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more driver experience parameters include one or more of: a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle; a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle and one or more other vehicles; an amount of time spent driving at a particular time of day; an amount of time spent driving in a particular weather condition; an amount of time spent driving on a particular road type; a history of driving test results associated with the driver; or a history of driving events associated with the driver (see at least para. 89 for history of traffic accidents of a driver).
Re claim 13, Oba further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to, responsive to detecting the risk of damage, determine and follow a lane of a road (see at least para. 68 for performing automatic driving to enter an evacuation lane when the driver’s driving ability is insufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Gordon with the features of Oba because it allows the vehicle to evacuate into an evacuation lane and safely slow down to a stop without impeding traffic when a driver’s driving ability is insufficient.
Re claim 15, Gordon further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to: track one or more of an eye movement of the driver or a head orientation of the driver; identify, based on the tracking, a field of vision or direction in a surrounding of the autonomous vehicle; and perform an autonomous navigation action based at least partly on the identifying (see at least para. 38 for transition from manual mode to autonomous mode if driver’s eyes have drifted from the road).
Re claim 16, Gordon further discloses wherein the risk of damage is a risk of personal or property damage (see at least para. 24 for example driving behaviors that pose risk of damage).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Oba (US 2017/0364070) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Huber (US 2017/0369073).
Re claim 14, modified Gordon is silent regarding, but Huber teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to generate a debriefing message indicating to the driver why autonomous navigation is activated (see at least para. 37 for warning driver collision is imminent and controlling vehicle autonomously without any user input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Gordon with the features of Huber because it reduces surprise and panic by the driver by informing the driver of an autonomous mode change.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5-12, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,117 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221).
As per claim 2, claim 28 of patent ‘117 teaches the claimed invention except for:
collecting the sensor data during a drive and
updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Gordon teaches collecting sensor data during a drive (see at least para. 50 and 53 for sensors for determining current roadway conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon because it enables the system to determine whether or not to switch to autonomous driving mode by basing the determinization in part on real-time roadway conditions currently experienced by the vehicle.
Modified patent ‘117 is silent regarding updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Vaughn teaches creating, modifying, and managing a driver profile based on measured driver behavior (see at least para. 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Vaughn because it enables a driver profile to be current by dynamically updating with measured driver behavior instead of a static profile that can be outdated as it does not change since creation.
As per claim 5, modified claim 10 of patent ‘117 teaches all the limitations of the claim.
As per claim 6, Gordon further teaches wherein changing between the autonomous navigation mode and the manual driving mode includes switching from a manual driving mode, in which the autonomous vehicle is controlled by a steering wheel, a brake pedal, and an acceleration pedal, to an autonomous driving mode (see at least para. 55-59 for switching from manual mode to fully autonomous mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to provide standard control inputs for driving a vehicle in manual mode.
As per claim 7, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes an external microphone to detect a sound and direction of sirens, or of operation of other vehicles undetected by an external camera (see at least para. 67 for microphone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 8, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes one or more motion detection sensors to detect obstacles on a road (see at least para. 50 for camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 9, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes a radar device or a sonar device to determine a distance to or relative motion of objects (see at least para. 53 for radar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 10, claim 28 of patent ‘117 teaches the claimed invention except for:
receiving the driver experience parameters during a drive;
updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Gordon teaches:
receiving the driver experience parameters during a drive (see at least para. 88 for receiving driver profile while the vehicle is traveling on a roadway);
collecting sensor data during a drive (see at least para. 50 and 53 for sensors for determining current roadway conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon because it enables the system to determine whether or not to switch to autonomous driving mode by basing the determinization in part on real-time roadway conditions currently experienced by the vehicle and the driver profile.
Modified patent ‘117 is silent regarding updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Vaughn teaches creating, modifying, and managing a driver profile based on measured driver behavior (see at least para. 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Vaughn because it enables a driver profile to be current by dynamically updating with measured driver behavior instead of a static profile that can be outdated as it does not change since creation.
As per claim 11, Gordon further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to issue a command to avoid a particular obstacle identified in or near a road on which the autonomous vehicle is travelling (see at least para. 56, 60, 62, for obstacle avoidance while operating in autonomous mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to mitigate damage to the vehicle when a risk for a potential collision is determined.
As per claim 12, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more driver experience parameters include one or more of: a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle; a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle and one or more other vehicles; an amount of time spent driving at a particular time of day; an amount of time spent driving in a particular weather condition; an amount of time spent driving on a particular road type; a history of driving test results associated with the driver; or a history of driving events associated with the driver (see at least para. 89 for history of traffic accidents of a driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon to build a driver profile comprising of a history of traffic accidents for use in determining whether is driver is unskilled or unqualified to drive in manual mode.
As per claim 15, Gordon further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to: track one or more of an eye movement of the driver or a head orientation of the driver; identify, based on the tracking, a field of vision or direction in a surrounding of the autonomous vehicle; and perform an autonomous navigation action based at least partly on the identifying (see at least para. 38 for transition from manual mode to autonomous mode if driver’s eyes have drifted from the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon because it allows to determine whether a driver is distracted by tracking whether the eyes have drifted from the road.
As per claim 16, Gordon further teaches wherein the risk of damage is a risk of personal or property damage (see at least para. 24 for example driving behaviors that pose risk of damage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘117 with the features of Gordon because it defines the risk as risk of damage to the vehicle and/or occupants.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,117in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Moran (US 2015/0266484).
As per claim 3, modified patent ‘117 is silent regarding but Moran teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the autonomous vehicle control system to: detect that a driver is manipulating a vehicle control of the autonomous vehicle; and determine, based on the driver manipulating the vehicle control, an inattentiveness of the driver, the risk of personal or property damage includes an increased risk based on the inattentiveness of the driver (see at least para. 2, 7, 38 for determining driver distracted based at least in part on turning a radio or adjusting the heating controls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified patent ‘117 with the features of Moran because it provides additional scenarios for which a driver is distracted and provides risk to the vehicle and occupants.
As per claim 4, Moran further teaches wherein the vehicle control includes at least one of a radio tuner or a volume control (see at least para. 2, 7, 38 for determining driver distracted based at least in part on turning a radio or adjusting the heating controls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified patent ‘117 with the features of Moran because it provides additional scenarios for which a driver is distracted and provides risk to the vehicle and occupants.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,117 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Oba (US 2017/0364070).
Re claim 13, modified patent ‘117 is not explicit regarding, but Oba teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to, responsive to detecting the risk of damage, determine and follow a lane of a road (see at least para. 68 for performing automatic driving to enter an evacuation lane when the driver’s driving ability is insufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified patent ‘117 with the features of Oba because it allows the vehicle to evacuate into an evacuation lane and safely slow down to a stop without impeding traffic when a driver’s driving ability is insufficient.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,640,117 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Huber (US 2017/0369073).
Re claim 14, modified patent ‘117 is silent regarding, but Huber teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to generate a debriefing message indicating to the driver why autonomous navigation is activated (see at least para. 37 for warning driver collision is imminent and controlling vehicle autonomously without any user input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified patent ‘117 with the features of Huber because it reduces surprise and panic by the driver by informing the driver of an autonomous mode change.
Claims 2, 5-12, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,389 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221).
As per claim 2, claim 28 of patent ‘389 teaches the claimed invention except for:
collecting the sensor data during a drive and
updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Gordon teaches collecting sensor data during a drive (see at least para. 50 and 53 for sensors for determining current roadway conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon because it enables the system to determine whether or not to switch to autonomous driving mode by basing the determinization in part on real-time roadway conditions currently experienced by the vehicle.
Modified patent ‘389 is silent regarding updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Vaughn teaches creating, modifying, and managing a driver profile based on measured driver behavior (see at least para. 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Vaughn because it enables a driver profile to be current by dynamically updating with measured driver behavior instead of a static profile that can be outdated as it does not change since creation.
As per claim 5, modified claim 28 of patent ‘389 teaches all the limitations of the claim.
As per claim 6, Gordon further teaches wherein changing between the autonomous navigation mode and the manual driving mode includes switching from a manual driving mode, in which the autonomous vehicle is controlled by a steering wheel, a brake pedal, and an acceleration pedal, to an autonomous driving mode (see at least para. 55-59 for switching from manual mode to fully autonomous mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to provide standard control inputs for driving a vehicle in manual mode.
As per claim 7, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes an external microphone to detect a sound and direction of sirens, or of operation of other vehicles undetected by an external camera (see at least para. 67 for microphone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 8, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes one or more motion detection sensors to detect obstacles on a road (see at least para. 50 for camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 9, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes a radar device or a sonar device to determine a distance to or relative motion of objects (see at least para. 53 for radar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to provide additional sources of input providing data indicative of potential risks to the vehicle.
As per claim 10, claim 28 of patent ‘389 teaches the claimed invention except for:
receiving the driver experience parameters during a drive;
updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Gordon teaches:
receiving the driver experience parameters during a drive (see at least para. 88 for receiving driver profile while the vehicle is traveling on a roadway);
collecting sensor data during a drive (see at least para. 50 and 53 for sensors for determining current roadway conditions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon because it enables the system to determine whether or not to switch to autonomous driving mode by basing the determinization in part on real-time roadway conditions currently experienced by the vehicle and the driver profile.
Modified patent ‘389 is silent regarding updating the plurality of driver experience parameters with the driving condition and an action taken by the driver during the drive.
Vaughn teaches creating, modifying, and managing a driver profile based on measured driver behavior (see at least para. 18-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Vaughn because it enables a driver profile to be current by dynamically updating with measured driver behavior instead of a static profile that can be outdated as it does not change since creation.
As per claim 11, Gordon further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to issue a command to avoid a particular obstacle identified in or near a road on which the autonomous vehicle is travelling (see at least para. 56, 60, 62, for obstacle avoidance while operating in autonomous mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to mitigate damage to the vehicle when a risk for a potential collision is determined.
As per claim 12, Gordon further teaches wherein the one or more driver experience parameters include one or more of: a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle; a total amount of time spent driving the autonomous vehicle and one or more other vehicles; an amount of time spent driving at a particular time of day; an amount of time spent driving in a particular weather condition; an amount of time spent driving on a particular road type; a history of driving test results associated with the driver; or a history of driving events associated with the driver (see at least para. 89 for history of traffic accidents of a driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon to build a driver profile comprising of a history of traffic accidents for use in determining whether is driver is unskilled or unqualified to drive in manual mode.
As per claim 15, Gordon further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to: track one or more of an eye movement of the driver or a head orientation of the driver; identify, based on the tracking, a field of vision or direction in a surrounding of the autonomous vehicle; and perform an autonomous navigation action based at least partly on the identifying (see at least para. 38 for transition from manual mode to autonomous mode if driver’s eyes have drifted from the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon because it allows to determine whether a driver is distracted by tracking whether the eyes have drifted from the road.
As per claim 16, Gordon further teaches wherein the risk of damage is a risk of personal or property damage (see at least para. 24 for example driving behaviors that pose risk of damage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified patent ‘389 with the features of Gordon because it defines the risk as risk of damage to the vehicle and/or occupants.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,389 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Moran (US 2015/0266484).
As per claim 3, modified patent ‘389 is silent regarding but Moran teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the autonomous vehicle control system to: detect that a driver is manipulating a vehicle control of the autonomous vehicle; and determine, based on the driver manipulating the vehicle control, an inattentiveness of the driver, the risk of personal or property damage includes an increased risk based on the inattentiveness of the driver (see at least para. 2, 7, 38 for determining driver distracted based at least in part on turning a radio or adjusting the heating controls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified patent ‘389 with the features of Moran because it provides additional scenarios for which a driver is distracted and provides risk to the vehicle and occupants.
As per claim 4, Moran further teaches wherein the vehicle control includes at least one of a radio tuner or a volume control (see at least para. 2, 7, 38 for determining driver distracted based at least in part on turning a radio or adjusting the heating controls).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified patent ‘389 with the features of Moran because it provides additional scenarios for which a driver is distracted and provides risk to the vehicle and occupants.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,389 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Oba (US 2017/0364070).
Re claim 13, modified patent ‘389 is not explicit regarding, but Oba teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to, responsive to detecting the risk of damage, determine and follow a lane of a road (see at least para. 68 for performing automatic driving to enter an evacuation lane when the driver’s driving ability is insufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified patent ‘389 with the features of Oba because it allows the vehicle to evacuate into an evacuation lane and safely slow down to a stop without impeding traffic when a driver’s driving ability is insufficient.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,597,389 in view of Gordon (US 2017/0106876) in view of Vaughn (US 2017/0174221) and further in view of Huber (US 2017/0369073).
Re claim 14, modified patent ‘389 is silent regarding, but Huber teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous vehicle control system to generate a debriefing message indicating to the driver why autonomous navigation is activated (see at least para. 37 for warning driver collision is imminent and controlling vehicle autonomously without any user input).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified patent ‘389 with the features of Huber because it reduces surprise and panic by the driver by informing the driver of an autonomous mode change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose the combination of limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619