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
This is a Final Office Action on the merits of Application No. 18/169,059, in response Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 01/30/2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 11, and 13; no claims are added or cancelled; and no new matter has been introduced. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the application and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under Double Patenting:
Applicant remarks (see Arguments/Remarks filed 01/30/2026) indicate that, “Applicant will consider filing a Terminal Disclaimer executed by the Applicant's representative in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) to disclaim the term of a patent resulting from the present application from extending beyond that of the '167 Patent, as soon as no other rejections remain in the present application and the claims are no longer expected to be amended. At that point, Applicant will review whether the present claims are patentably distinct from the claims of the '167 Patent.”. Please see Double Patenting below for examination based upon amended claims.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments (see Arguments/Remarks, filed 01/30/2026) with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but, respectfully, are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “the proposed combination(s) of references fail(s) to teach or suggest all of the claimed features, in particular (1) based on the detection, determine a level of operator confidence, wherein the level of operator confidence reflects whether the vehicle operator is prepared to assume control over the vehicle, (2) comparing the determined level of operator confidence to a threshold level of operator confidence, and (3) the threshold level of operator confidence is dynamically based on one or more of a traffic parameter and/or a weather parameter.”, “No part of Duncan or Yopp describes the threshold level of operator confidence is dynamically based on one or more of a traffic parameter and/or a weather parameter.”, and, “claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also not anticipated or rendered obvious at least due to their dependency from one of independent claims 1 and 11, in addition to the features they individually recite.”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Duncan discloses (see at least Duncan [¶0034]) “an evaluator can be used to evaluate an operator while the vehicle is in motion. For example, referring to FIG. 3, evaluator 300 coupled to vehicle 100 is shown according to one embodiment. Evaluator 300 is configured to provide operator 110 with constrained operational control of the vehicle and an evaluation period during which the operator or prospective operator has the opportunity to show that he/she is not impaired. At the completion of the evaluation period or at some point prior, evaluator 300 is configured to send one or more signals to control system 220 regarding the results of the evaluation (i.e., whether the operator is impaired and/or should be in control of the vehicle). If operator 110 is successful (shows no impairment), control system 220 can deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”, where a level of operator confidence, whether the vehicle operator is prepared to assume control over the vehicle, is determined in order for the control system to make control decisions regarding the continued autonomous operation or vehicle control transition to other control modes.
Duncan further discloses (see at least Duncan [¶0035, 0040-0041, Fig.4]), “Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels are received by a control system (401). Threshold data includes approved operator state characteristics []. Threshold data can also include pre-approved/selected operator driving characteristics (see above) and/or pre-approved/selected surroundings data (see above, e.g., environmental conditions internal and/or external to the vehicle). Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels can be inputted by any operator of the vehicle, the vehicle's owner, and/or be preset from manufacturer specifications. Operator (and prospective operator) and/or surroundings data is acquired by a detection system using a sensor (402).”, “The operator and/or surroundings data is transmitted to the control system and processed alongside the pre-approved/selected threshold data levels []. Based on this determination, the request may be granted or refused by the control system.”, where a level of operator confidence is determined and compared to a threshold in order for the system to make control decisions regarding the continued autonomous operation or vehicle control transition to other control modes. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the combination of Duncan and Yopp disclose all claim limitations. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section below.
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 1, 2, 4 – 12, 14 – 20 of US Patent Application No. 18/169,059 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 thru 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,640,167. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is well settled that adding or deleting an element and its function in claims 1-20 of the Application No. 18/169,059, such as “determine biometric information for the vehicle operator; determine an operator parameter based on the biometric information; responsive to the operator parameter having a particular value,” in claim 1 for example are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of are identical to those of U.S. Patent No. 11,640,167.
Claim 6 of discloses “The system of claim 1, including the user interface, wherein the challenge is provided through the user interface.”, which are all the elements of claim 6, “The system of claim 1, including the user interface.”, and claim 7, “The system of claim 6, wherein the challenge is provided through the user interface.”, of U.S. Patent No. 11,640,167.
Claim 7 discloses “The system of claim 1, wherein the biometric information represents a direction of view for the vehicle operator. ”, which is disclosed in claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,640,167, “The system of claim 1, further comprising: one or more sensors configured to generate output signals conveying operator information related to a direction of view of the vehicle operator…”.
Thus, it is well settled that adding or deleting an element and its function in claims 1-20 of the Application No. 18/169,059 are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Claims 11 thru 20 are Method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the corresponding System claims 1 thru 10 above and are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150149021 Duncan (Duncan hereafter) in view of US 20150066284 Yopp (Yopp hereafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Duncan discloses A system configured to determine whether to transition vehicle control of a vehicle between an autonomous operation mode and one or more other modes of operation (see at least Duncan [¶0038, Fig. 7], “If evaluator 300 determines that the data indicates no impairment, evaluator 300 can send a signal to control system 220 to deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”), wherein the system is configured to couple with the vehicle that includes a user interface (see at least Duncan [¶0051, Fig. 7], “System 700 also includes robotic driving device 210 and operator input/output device 704.”), wherein the user interface is configured to provide an interface between the system and a vehicle operator of the vehicle (see at least Duncan [¶0051, Fig. 7]), the system comprising:
one or more processors (see at least Duncan [item 701 in Fig. 7]) configured to:
determine biometric information for the vehicle operator (see at least Duncan [¶0024 – 0026, Fig. 7], ”[0024] Sensor 240 can further include breathalyzers; other drug and alcohol sensors (e.g., pupil dilation sensor); vision and hearing sensors; alertness sensors; heart rate monitors; blood analyzers; tremor sensors (e.g., to detect hand tremors); dexterity sensors; cognitive sensors; etc.”);
based on the detection, determine a level of operator confidence, wherein the level of operator confidence reflects whether the vehicle operator is prepared to assume control over the vehicle, and determine whether to effectuate continued operation in the autonomous operation mode of the vehicle or to effectuate a transition of vehicle control to another mode of operation, wherein the determination regarding the continued operation is based comparing the determined level of operator confidence to a threshold level of operator confidence. (see at least Duncan [¶0034-0035, 0040-0041, Fig.4]), “an evaluator can be used to evaluate an operator while the vehicle is in motion. For example, referring to FIG. 3, evaluator 300 coupled to vehicle 100 is shown according to one embodiment. Evaluator 300 is configured to provide operator 110 with constrained operational control of the vehicle and an evaluation period during which the operator or prospective operator has the opportunity to show that he/she is not impaired. At the completion of the evaluation period or at some point prior, evaluator 300 is configured to send one or more signals to control system 220 regarding the results of the evaluation (i.e., whether the operator is impaired and/or should be in control of the vehicle). If operator 110 is successful (shows no impairment), control system 220 can deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”, “Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels are received by a control system (401). Threshold data includes approved operator state characteristics, such as an indication of: blood-alcohol level; presence of harmful affecting drugs; medical diagnostics, such as heart rate and oxygen levels; vision acuity; and cognitive reactiveness acuity (see above for additional data references). Threshold data can also include pre-approved/selected operator driving characteristics (see above) and/or pre-approved/selected surroundings data (see above, e.g., environmental conditions internal and/or external to the vehicle). Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels can be inputted by any operator of the vehicle, the vehicle's owner, and/or be preset from manufacturer specifications. Operator (and prospective operator) and/or surroundings data is acquired by a detection system using a sensor (402). The sensor can include the sensor types and functions described above. A robotic driving device is determined to be activated (403). As such, the vehicle is in robotic driving mode. A request from the operator or prospective operator to initiate manual driving mode is received (404).”, “The operator and/or surroundings data is transmitted to the control system and processed alongside the pre-approved/selected threshold data levels to determine whether the operator (or prospective operator) is impaired or potentially may be impaired (405). Based on this determination, the request may be granted or refused by the control system.”, where a level of operator confidence is determined and compared to a threshold in order for the system to make control decisions regarding the continued autonomous operation or vehicle control transition to other control modes.).
Duncan does not explicitly disclose determine an operator parameter based on the biometric information;
responsive to the operator parameter having a particular value, present a challenge to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator while the vehicle is in the autonomous operation mode, wherein the challenge corresponds to an expected response by the vehicle operator, and wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response;
detect whether a response by the vehicle operator to the challenge matches the expected response, wherein the detection of the response is based on an interaction between the user interface and the vehicle operator.
However, Yopp, directed towards autonomous vehicle control for impaired driver, discloses determine an operator parameter based on the biometric information (see at least Yopp [¶0015], “collected data 115 relating to a driver state could be used to establish parameters for driver impairment”);
responsive to the operator parameter having a particular value (see at least Yopp [¶0015], “whereupon data 115, by itself or in combination with other collected data 115, could indicate driver impairment when outside establish parameters.), present a challenge to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator while the vehicle is in the autonomous operation mode, wherein the challenge corresponds to an expected response by the vehicle operator (see at least Yopp [¶0017], “the computer 105 and/or a user device 150 in communication with the computer 105 could be configured to determine whether a driver is able to respond to a question or questions from a human machine interface (HMI) or the like, and/or an HMI or the like could be used to obtain information from a driver concerning a driver condition, e.g., an impaired condition”), and wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response (see at least Yopp [¶0022], “if the driver does not require assistance but is merely impaired, e.g., under the influence of alcohol or some other drug, the autonomous driving module 106 may be employed to safely deliver the driver to his or her destination, particularly if other measures are taken, such as disabling any ability of the driver to override the module 106 and take control of the vehicle 101.”);
detect whether a response by the vehicle operator to the challenge matches the expected response, wherein the detection of the response is based on an interaction between the user interface and the vehicle operator (see at least Yopp [¶0017, Claim 7], “the computer is configured to determine that the condition is an impaired condition based at least in part on input obtained via a human machine interface (HMI).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yopp to modify Duncan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of determining an operator parameter based on the biometric information, and present a challenge, based on the parameter value, to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator by matching the operator response to the challenge with the expected response, wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response, for the purpose of taking into account a human driver's state or condition in executing vehicle operations, as taught by Yopp, to ensure safe autonomous, semi-autonomous or manual operation of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11, Duncan discloses A method to transition vehicle control of a vehicle between an autonomous operation mode and one or more other modes of operation (see at least Duncan [¶0038, Fig. 7], “evaluator 300 can send a signal to control system 220 to deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”), wherein the vehicle
includes a user interface that provides an interface between the vehicle and a vehicle operator of the vehicle (see at least Duncan [¶0051, Fig. 7], “System 700 also includes robotic driving device 210 and operator input/output device 704.”), the method comprising:
determining biometric information for the vehicle operator (see at least Duncan [¶0024 – 0026, Fig. 7], ”[0024] Sensor 240 can further include breathalyzers; other drug and alcohol sensors (e.g., pupil dilation sensor); vision and hearing sensors; alertness sensors; heart rate monitors; blood analyzers; tremor sensors (e.g., to detect hand tremors); dexterity sensors; cognitive sensors; etc.”);
based on the detection, determining a level of operator confidence, wherein the level of operator confidence reflects whether the vehicle operator is prepared to assume control over the vehicle, and determining whether to effectuate continued operation in the autonomous operation mode of the vehicle or to effectuate a transition of vehicle control to another mode of operation, wherein the determination regarding the continued operation is based on comparing the determined level of operator confidence to a threshold level of operator confidence. (see at least Duncan [¶0034-0035, 0040-0041, Fig.4]), “an evaluator can be used to evaluate an operator while the vehicle is in motion. For example, referring to FIG. 3, evaluator 300 coupled to vehicle 100 is shown according to one embodiment. Evaluator 300 is configured to provide operator 110 with constrained operational control of the vehicle and an evaluation period during which the operator or prospective operator has the opportunity to show that he/she is not impaired. At the completion of the evaluation period or at some point prior, evaluator 300 is configured to send one or more signals to control system 220 regarding the results of the evaluation (i.e., whether the operator is impaired and/or should be in control of the vehicle). If operator 110 is successful (shows no impairment), control system 220 can deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”, “Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels are received by a control system (401). Threshold data includes approved operator state characteristics, such as an indication of: blood-alcohol level; presence of harmful affecting drugs; medical diagnostics, such as heart rate and oxygen levels; vision acuity; and cognitive reactiveness acuity (see above for additional data references). Threshold data can also include pre-approved/selected operator driving characteristics (see above) and/or pre-approved/selected surroundings data (see above, e.g., environmental conditions internal and/or external to the vehicle). Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels can be inputted by any operator of the vehicle, the vehicle's owner, and/or be preset from manufacturer specifications. Operator (and prospective operator) and/or surroundings data is acquired by a detection system using a sensor (402). The sensor can include the sensor types and functions described above. A robotic driving device is determined to be activated (403). As such, the vehicle is in robotic driving mode. A request from the operator or prospective operator to initiate manual driving mode is received (404).”, “The operator and/or surroundings data is transmitted to the control system and processed alongside the pre-approved/selected threshold data levels to determine whether the operator (or prospective operator) is impaired or potentially may be impaired (405). Based on this determination, the request may be granted or refused by the control system.”, where a level of operator confidence is determined and compared to a threshold in order for the system to make control decisions regarding the continued autonomous operation or vehicle control transition to other control modes.).
Duncan does not explicitly disclose determining an operator parameter based on the biometric information;
responsive to the operator parameter having a particular value, presenting a challenge to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator while the vehicle is in the autonomous operation mode, wherein the challenge corresponds to an expected response by the vehicle operator, and wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response;
detecting whether a response by the vehicle operator to the challenge matches the expected response, wherein the detection of the response is based on an interaction between the user interface and the vehicle operator.
However, Yopp, directed towards autonomous vehicle control for impaired driver, discloses determining an operator parameter based on the biometric information (see at least Yopp [¶0015], “collected data 115 relating to a driver state could be used to establish parameters for driver impairment”);
responsive to the operator parameter having a particular value (see at least Yopp [¶0015], “whereupon data 115, by itself or in combination with other collected data 115, could indicate driver impairment when outside establish parameters.), presenting a challenge to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator while the vehicle is in the autonomous operation mode, wherein the challenge corresponds to an expected response by the vehicle operator (see at least Yopp [¶0017], “the computer 105 and/or a user device 150 in communication with the computer 105 could be configured to determine whether a driver is able to respond to a question or questions from a human machine interface (HMI) or the like, and/or an HMI or the like could be used to obtain information from a driver concerning a driver condition, e.g., an impaired condition”), and wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response (see at least Yopp [¶0022], “if the driver does not require assistance but is merely impaired, e.g., under the influence of alcohol or some other drug, the autonomous driving module 106 may be employed to safely deliver the driver to his or her destination, particularly if other measures are taken, such as disabling any ability of the driver to override the module 106 and take control of the vehicle 101.”);
detecting whether a response by the vehicle operator to the challenge matches the expected response, wherein the detection of the response is based on an interaction between the user interface and the vehicle operator (see at least Yopp [¶0017, Claim 7], “the computer is configured to determine that the condition is an impaired condition based at least in part on input obtained via a human machine interface (HMI).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered the teachings of Yopp to modify Duncan, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use the technique of determining an operator parameter based on the biometric information, and present a challenge, based on the parameter value, to the vehicle operator to gauge responsiveness of the vehicle operator by matching the operator response to the challenge with the expected response, wherein continued control of the vehicle through the autonomous operation mode requires the vehicle operator to respond to the challenge in a manner that matches the expected response, for the purpose of taking into account a human driver's state or condition in executing vehicle operations, as taught by Yopp, to ensure safe autonomous, semi-autonomous or manual operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the user interface includes a microphone, and wherein the detection is based on audio information captured by the microphone (see at least Duncan [¶0027, 0059], “[0027] The request can include a selection by the prospective operator or a command to deactivate a robotic driving mode in favor of a manual driving mode; this selection may be verbal, electronic, touching of a switch, etc.”, “[0059] Commands can include verbal and physical commands”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the threshold level of operator confidence is dynamically based on one or more of a traffic parameter and/or a weather parameter (see at least Duncan [¶0032, 0040-0041]), “Robotic driving device 210 is also configured to obey all posted signage and all federal, state, and local vehicular laws. Robotic driving device 210 can include a transceiver 280. Transceiver 280 is configured to acquire vehicle surroundings information or data. Vehicle surroundings information can include an indication of: the presence and location of other vehicles; posted speed limits; weather conditions; etc. Robotic driving device 210 uses this information to safely and effectively drive vehicle 100.”, “Threshold data can also include pre-approved/selected operator driving characteristics (see above) and/or pre-approved/selected surroundings data (see above, e.g., environmental conditions internal and/or external to the vehicle). Pre-approved/selected threshold data levels can be inputted by any operator of the vehicle, the vehicle's owner, and/or be preset from manufacturer specifications.”, “The operator and/or surroundings data is transmitted to the control system and processed alongside the pre-approved/selected threshold data levels[]. Based on this determination, the request may be granted or refused by the control system.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the detection is based on tactile feedback provided by the vehicle operator (see at least Duncan [¶0027], “The request can include a selection by the prospective operator or a command to deactivate a robotic driving mode in favor of a manual driving mode; this selection may be verbal, electronic, touching of a switch, etc.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the detection is based on an amount of elapsed time between the challenge and the response (see at least Duncan [¶0027], “Sensor 240 may detect a slow cognitive response time of prospective operator 110 (e.g., prospective operator slowly, incorrectly, or altogether does not respond to test questions)”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses including the user interface, wherein the challenge is provided through the user interface (see at least Duncan [¶0053], “Control system 220 is configured to control the operation of detection system 230. Control system 220 is further configured to control operation of robotic driving device 210 and allow for operator, driver, and/or user programming through operator input/output device 704.”).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the biometric information represents a direction of view for the vehicle operator (see at least Duncan [¶0025], “As mentioned above, data acquired can include state and driving characteristics of operator 110 and surroundings data.”, ”Surroundings data can include an indication of: environmental conditions both internal and external of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 8, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose The system of claim 1, Duncan further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to operate the vehicle in the autonomous operation mode (see at least Duncan [¶0055], “Processor 701 is further configured to initiate robotic driving device 210 if an impairment or potential impairment is identified. In addition, processor 701 is configured to turn robotic driving device 210 off if an operator is no longer impaired.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the transition transitions the vehicle control to a manual mode of operation (see at least Duncan [¶0034], “control system 220 can deactivate robotic driving device 210 in favor of manual driving mode.”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Duncan and Yopp in combination disclose the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, respectively, Duncan further discloses wherein the transition instructs the vehicle control to park the vehicle (see at least Duncan [¶0004], “a control system configured to determine whether an emergency situation exists based on the data and based on the determination, to selectively activate the robotic driving device to direct the vehicle to an emergency response location selected based on the emergency situation.”).
Conclusion
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Any reference to specific figures, column, line and paragraphs should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are considered to provide relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner encourages Applicant to fill out and submit form PTO-SB-439 to allow internet communications in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 (MPEP 502.03). Should the need arise to perfect applicant-proposed or examiner’s amendments, authorization for e-mail correspondence would have already been authorized and would save time.
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 Neit J. Nieves Flores whose telephone number is (703)756-5864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0930-1800 AST.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/Neit J. Nieves Flores/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights