DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Final Rejection is in response to the amendment submitted on 3/10/2026.
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 and Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3/10/2026, with respect to rejection of claims 2, 7-8, 10, 15, and 17 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections pertaining to 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3/10/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims, which changed the scope of the claims. Examiner notes wherein Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the newly amended claim limitation(s), which are addressed by the newly found prior art, as indicated below.
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, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1)
Claim 1:
Tsumura teaches the following limitations:
A method, comprising: selecting a trajectory test with a predefined reference trajectory; displaying the predefined reference trajectory to a vehicle operator; (Tsumura – [Page 3, paragraph 2] Further, when the start is instructed by the driver, an affirmative determination is made in the determination of step 102. Next, the driving simulator 24 displays on the display screen of the display device 26 a simulated traveling course that simulates an object that appears forward from the viewpoint position of the driver, and also includes a handle 40, an accelerator pedal 42, a brake by the driver. A driving simulation for running the virtual vehicle along the simulated traveling course is performed according to the operation content of the pedal 44 and the like (step 104). ; [Page 7, paragraph 9] The driving simulator means provides a predetermined driving task accompanied by a change in operation contents of the operating means while a driver operates the operating means on the simulated traveling course.) constraining vehicle operator inputs applied to the vehicle during the execution of the trajectory test; (Tsumura – [Page 5, paragraph 2] As described above, in the in-vehicle system according to the present embodiment, the actual steering wheel 40, the accelerator pedal 42, the brake pedal 44, and the like are operated in a pseudo manner on the simulated traveling course before automatic operation is switched to manual operation. … it is possible to prevent the traveling state of the vehicle from becoming unstable after switching to automatic driving.) receiving tracking performance data from the vehicle; (Tsumura –[Page 4, paragraph 6] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a problem of traveling on a curved road on a simulated traveling course. … The driver can clear this problem by correctly performing the steering wheel operation and the brake operation according to the contents of the questions. If a driver who has not returned his driving intent performs a sudden steering operation or braking operation, this problem cannot be cleared and the same problem will be given again ; )
Tsumura does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however VandenBerg teaches:
adjusting evaluation metrics based on an external environment condition; and (VandeBerg – [Column 31, Lines 6 – 17] In some implementations, the external vehicle operator management system 850 can assist the vehicle operator and/or remotely diagnose one or more issues with the autonomous vehicle. For example, if a vehicle operator vigilance level is low, a remote operator can ask the vehicle operator if there is anything in particular affecting the vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts. For example, external weather conditions or traffic conditions may impair a vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts due to the vehicle operator paying close attention to the conditions in which the autonomous vehicle is operating. …) evaluating the tracking performance data with the evaluation metrics to determine a quantitative measure of operator vigilance. (VandeBerg – [Column 7, Lines 24 – 33] In some implementations, the vehicle operator can be provided feedback on the vehicle operator vigilance level. For example, the computing system can display or audibly play an indicator of the vehicle operator vigilance level (e.g., a numerical value, score, percentage, accuracy, response time, or category, such as pass/fail, high/low, etc.). In some implementations, a vehicle operator vigilance level for a particular vigilance prompt can be provided, such as an indication of the accuracy or response time following a response to a particular vigilance prompt. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura to include a method of incorporating external conditions and quantitative evaluation methods into the driver handover evaluation as taught in VandenBerg. Incorporating external conditions and utilizing quantitative values for the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 9:
Tsumura teaches the following limitations:
A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: select a trajectory test with a predefined reference trajectory; display the predefined reference trajectory to a vehicle operator; (Tsumura – [Page 3, paragraph 2] Further, when the start is instructed by the driver, an affirmative determination is made in the determination of step 102. Next, the driving simulator 24 displays on the display screen of the display device 26 a simulated traveling course that simulates an object that appears forward from the viewpoint position of the driver, and also includes a handle 40, an accelerator pedal 42, a brake by the driver. A driving simulation for running the virtual vehicle along the simulated traveling course is performed according to the operation content of the pedal 44 and the like (step 104). ; [Page 7, paragraph 9] The driving simulator means provides a predetermined driving task accompanied by a change in operation contents of the operating means while a driver operates the operating means on the simulated traveling course.) constrain vehicle operator inputs applied to the vehicle during the execution of the trajectory test; (Tsumura – [Page 5, paragraph 2] As described above, in the in-vehicle system according to the present embodiment, the actual steering wheel 40, the accelerator pedal 42, the brake pedal 44, and the like are operated in a pseudo manner on the simulated traveling course before automatic operation is switched to manual operation. … it is possible to prevent the traveling state of the vehicle from becoming unstable after switching to automatic driving.) receive tracking performance data from the vehicle; (Tsumura –[Page 4, paragraph 6] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a problem of traveling on a curved road on a simulated traveling course. … The driver can clear this problem by correctly performing the steering wheel operation and the brake operation according to the contents of the questions. If a driver who has not returned his driving intent performs a sudden steering operation or braking operation, this problem cannot be cleared and the same problem will be given again ; )
Tsumura does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however VadenBerg teaches:
adjust evaluation metrics based on an external environment condition; and (VandeBerg – [Column 31, Lines 6 – 17] In some implementations, the external vehicle operator management system 850 can assist the vehicle operator and/or remotely diagnose one or more issues with the autonomous vehicle. For example, if a vehicle operator vigilance level is low, a remote operator can ask the vehicle operator if there is anything in particular affecting the vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts. For example, external weather conditions or traffic conditions may impair a vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts due to the vehicle operator paying close attention to the conditions in which the autonomous vehicle is operating. …) evaluate the tracking performance data with the evaluation metrics to determine a quantitative measure of operator vigilance. (VandeBerg – [Column 7, Lines 24 – 33] In some implementations, the vehicle operator can be provided feedback on the vehicle operator vigilance level. For example, the computing system can display or audibly play an indicator of the vehicle operator vigilance level (e.g., a numerical value, score, percentage, accuracy, response time, or category, such as pass/fail, high/low, etc.). In some implementations, a vehicle operator vigilance level for a particular vigilance prompt can be provided, such as an indication of the accuracy or response time following a response to a particular vigilance prompt. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura to include a method of incorporating external conditions and quantitative evaluation methods into the driver handover evaluation as taught in VandenBerg. Incorporating external conditions and utilizing quantitative values for the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 16:
Tsumura teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to: select a trajectory test with a predefined reference trajectory; display the predefined reference trajectory to a vehicle operator; (Tsumura – [Page 3, paragraph 2] Further, when the start is instructed by the driver, an affirmative determination is made in the determination of step 102. Next, the driving simulator 24 displays on the display screen of the display device 26 a simulated traveling course that simulates an object that appears forward from the viewpoint position of the driver, and also includes a handle 40, an accelerator pedal 42, a brake by the driver. A driving simulation for running the virtual vehicle along the simulated traveling course is performed according to the operation content of the pedal 44 and the like (step 104). ; [Page 7, paragraph 9] The driving simulator means provides a predetermined driving task accompanied by a change in operation contents of the operating means while a driver operates the operating means on the simulated traveling course.) constrain vehicle operator inputs applied to the vehicle during the execution of the trajectory test; (Tsumura – [Page 5, paragraph 2] As described above, in the in-vehicle system according to the present embodiment, the actual steering wheel 40, the accelerator pedal 42, the brake pedal 44, and the like are operated in a pseudo manner on the simulated traveling course before automatic operation is switched to manual operation. … it is possible to prevent the traveling state of the vehicle from becoming unstable after switching to automatic driving.) receive tracking performance data from the vehicle; (Tsumura –[Page 4, paragraph 6] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a problem of traveling on a curved road on a simulated traveling course. … The driver can clear this problem by correctly performing the steering wheel operation and the brake operation according to the contents of the questions. If a driver who has not returned his driving intent performs a sudden steering operation or braking operation, this problem cannot be cleared and the same problem will be given again ; )
Tsumura does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however VadenBerg teaches:
adjust evaluation metrics based on an external environment condition; and (VandeBerg – [Column 31, Lines 6 – 17] In some implementations, the external vehicle operator management system 850 can assist the vehicle operator and/or remotely diagnose one or more issues with the autonomous vehicle. For example, if a vehicle operator vigilance level is low, a remote operator can ask the vehicle operator if there is anything in particular affecting the vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts. For example, external weather conditions or traffic conditions may impair a vehicle operator's ability to respond to vigilance prompts due to the vehicle operator paying close attention to the conditions in which the autonomous vehicle is operating. …) evaluate the tracking performance data with the evaluation metrics to determine a quantitative measure of operator vigilance. (VandeBerg – [Column 7, Lines 24 – 33] In some implementations, the vehicle operator can be provided feedback on the vehicle operator vigilance level. For example, the computing system can display or audibly play an indicator of the vehicle operator vigilance level (e.g., a numerical value, score, percentage, accuracy, response time, or category, such as pass/fail, high/low, etc.). In some implementations, a vehicle operator vigilance level for a particular vigilance prompt can be provided, such as an indication of the accuracy or response time following a response to a particular vigilance prompt. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura to include a method of incorporating external conditions and quantitative evaluation methods into the driver handover evaluation as taught in VandenBerg. Incorporating external conditions and utilizing quantitative values for the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1) in view of Bahn (US 20200064833 A1)
Claim 2:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Bahn teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the trajectory test is implemented based on whether a vehicle operator has a disability.
(Bahn - [0116] When the result of the first drunk-driving test satisfies normal criteria, the processor 170 allows the start on of the vehicle 700, and performs a second drunk-driving test after the start on of the vehicle 700. ; [0124] In addition, the processor 170 performs the second drunk-driving test on the driver during the driving of the vehicle 700 based on the set test condition. ; [0126] In some implementations, the second drunk-driving test may be performed through the analysis of … , the driving pattern of the vehicle 700, …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a trajectory test that is administered based on predetermined criteria and involves assessing the trajectory of the vehicle as taught in Bahn. Giving the system the opportunity to assess the driver for a disability enhances the safety of the occupants of the targeted vehicle as well as surrounding vehicles and pedestrians.
Claim 10:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Bahn teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the machine-readable instruction to select the trajectory test is implemented based on whether a vehicle operator has a disability.
(Bahn - [0116] When the result of the first drunk-driving test satisfies normal criteria, the processor 170 allows the start on of the vehicle 700, and performs a second drunk-driving test after the start on of the vehicle 700. ; [0124] In addition, the processor 170 performs the second drunk-driving test on the driver during the driving of the vehicle 700 based on the set test condition. ; [0126] In some implementations, the second drunk-driving test may be performed through the analysis of … , the driving pattern of the vehicle 700, …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a trajectory test that is administered based on predetermined criteria and involves assessing the trajectory of the vehicle as taught in Bahn. Giving the system the opportunity to assess the driver for a disability enhances the safety of the occupants of the targeted vehicle as well as surrounding vehicles and pedestrians.
Claim 17:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Bahn teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instruction to select the trajectory test is implemented based on whether a vehicle operator has a disability.
(Bahn - [0116] When the result of the first drunk-driving test satisfies normal criteria, the processor 170 allows the start on of the vehicle 700, and performs a second drunk-driving test after the start on of the vehicle 700. ; [0124] In addition, the processor 170 performs the second drunk-driving test on the driver during the driving of the vehicle 700 based on the set test condition. ; [0126] In some implementations, the second drunk-driving test may be performed through the analysis of … , the driving pattern of the vehicle 700, …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a trajectory test that is administered based on predetermined criteria and involves assessing the trajectory of the vehicle as taught in Bahn. Giving the system the opportunity to assess the driver for disability enhances the safety of the occupants of the targeted vehicle as well as surrounding vehicles and pedestrians.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1) in view of Fox (US 20200064833 A1)
Claim 3:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The method of selecting the trajectory test is based on weather.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on weather conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating weather conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 4:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The method of selecting the trajectory test is based on traffic.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on traffic conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating traffic conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 11:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the machine-readable instruction to select the trajectory test is based on weather.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on weather conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating weather conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 12:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the machine-readable instruction to select the trajectory test is based on traffic.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on traffic conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating traffic conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 18:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instruction to select the trajectory testis based on weather.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on weather conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating weather conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 19:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Fox teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instruction to select the trajectory testis based on traffic.
(Fox - [0097] The operations of methods 500 and/or 600 may define the driver performance requirements to include requirements for …one or more identified contextual factors to include a level of traffic congestion within a selected distance from the vehicle, weather conditions, road conditions, autonomous vehicle manufacturer conditions, and/or determine an appropriate transition time required for each of the one or more entities for one or more types of vehicles to complete the customized transition plan.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of selecting a driver evaluation based in part on traffic conditions when evaluating driver handover as taught in Fox. Incorporating traffic conditions into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1) in view of Abe (US 20230034419 A1)
Claim 5:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Abe teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the external environment condition is a weather condition.
(Abe- [0056] The surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may also be configured to detect a traveling environment such as a weather or brightness of image data. The information regarding the traveling environment to be detected may include information regarding, for example, a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, or the brightness of the image data which can influence the reliability of the sensors used to collect various data to be used in a calculation process of the automatic driving. … ; [0101] Thereafter, the difficulty-level determination unit 71 may execute a process of determining the difficulty level of the operation authority transfer from the automatic driving to the manual driving on the basis of the acquired information regarding the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1, the acquired information regarding the driving skill of the driver, and the acquired information regarding the experience level of the driver of the operation authority transfer (step S67). …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of incorporating weather conditions into the driver handover evaluation as taught in Abe. Incorporating weather simulations into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 6:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Abe teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the external environment condition is a traffic condition.
(Abe- [0055] The surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may detect the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1 on the basis of the detection data received from the surrounding environment sensor 31. For example, the surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may calculate a kind, a size (a width, a height, and a depth), and a position of an obstacle present around the vehicle 1; a distance from the vehicle 1 to the obstacle; and respective relative speeds of the vehicle 1 and the obstacle. The obstacle to be detected may include any object present around the vehicle 1. Non-limiting examples of such an obstacle may include another vehicle that is traveling, another vehicle that is stopped, a pedestrian, a bicycle, a sidewall, a curb, a building, a utility pole, a traffic sign, a traffic light, and a nature object. … ; [0101] Thereafter, the difficulty-level determination unit 71 may execute a process of determining the difficulty level of the operation authority transfer from the automatic driving to the manual driving on the basis of the acquired information regarding the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1, the acquired information regarding the driving skill of the driver, and the acquired information regarding the experience level of the driver of the operation authority transfer (step S67). …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of incorporating traffic conditions into the driver handover evaluation as taught in Abe. Incorporating traffic simulations into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 13:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Abe teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the external environment condition is a weather condition.
(Abe- [0056] The surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may also be configured to detect a traveling environment such as a weather or brightness of image data. The information regarding the traveling environment to be detected may include information regarding, for example, a rainfall amount, a snowfall amount, or the brightness of the image data which can influence the reliability of the sensors used to collect various data to be used in a calculation process of the automatic driving. … ; [0101] Thereafter, the difficulty-level determination unit 71 may execute a process of determining the difficulty level of the operation authority transfer from the automatic driving to the manual driving on the basis of the acquired information regarding the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1, the acquired information regarding the driving skill of the driver, and the acquired information regarding the experience level of the driver of the operation authority transfer (step S67). …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of incorporating weather conditions into the driver handover evaluation as taught in Abe. Incorporating weather simulations into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claim 14:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Abe teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein the external environment condition is a traffic condition.
(Abe- [0055] The surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may detect the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1 on the basis of the detection data received from the surrounding environment sensor 31. For example, the surrounding-environment detection unit 63 may calculate a kind, a size (a width, a height, and a depth), and a position of an obstacle present around the vehicle 1; a distance from the vehicle 1 to the obstacle; and respective relative speeds of the vehicle 1 and the obstacle. The obstacle to be detected may include any object present around the vehicle 1. Non-limiting examples of such an obstacle may include another vehicle that is traveling, another vehicle that is stopped, a pedestrian, a bicycle, a sidewall, a curb, a building, a utility pole, a traffic sign, a traffic light, and a nature object. … ; [0101] Thereafter, the difficulty-level determination unit 71 may execute a process of determining the difficulty level of the operation authority transfer from the automatic driving to the manual driving on the basis of the acquired information regarding the surrounding environment of the vehicle 1, the acquired information regarding the driving skill of the driver, and the acquired information regarding the experience level of the driver of the operation authority transfer (step S67). …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of incorporating traffic conditions into the driver handover evaluation as taught in Abe. Incorporating traffic simulations into the driver evaluation ensures that the driver’s level of vigilance is closely matched to real world conditions, thus improving safety and the efficiency of the hand-off process.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1) in view of Smid (US 20180339714 A1)
Claim 7:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Smid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracking performance data includes adjusting the tracking performance data affected by an autonomous vehicle maneuver.
(Smid – [0025] … The system may generate an alert or indication when the vehicle is arriving at the start of the nap window, whereby the system may suspend the driver monitor/drowsiness detection system to allow the driver to close his/her eyes and take a nap.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and Vandenberg to include a method of suspending the evaluation of driver performance during autonomous control as taught in Smid. Having the ability to reduce the driver monitoring criteria during autonomous function frees the driver for other activities, reduces the chance of adversely changing the driver’s performance evaluation, and further reduces the amount of computing resources spent on the monitoring process.
Claim 15:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Smid teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracking performance data includes adjusting the tracking performance data affected by an autonomous vehicle maneuver.
(Smid – [0025] … The system may generate an alert or indication when the vehicle is arriving at the start of the nap window, whereby the system may suspend the driver monitor/drowsiness detection system to allow the driver to close his/her eyes and take a nap.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of suspending the evaluation of driver performance during autonomous control as taught in Smid. Having the ability to reduce the driver monitoring criteria during autonomous function frees the driver for other activities, reduces the chance of adversely changing the driver’s performance evaluation, and further reduces the amount of computing resources spent on the monitoring process.
Claim 20:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Smid teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the instruction to evaluate the tracking performance data includes adjusting the tracking performance data affected by an autonomous vehicle maneuver.
(Smid – [0025] … The system may generate an alert or indication when the vehicle is arriving at the start of the nap window, whereby the system may suspend the driver monitor/drowsiness detection system to allow the driver to close his/her eyes and take a nap.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of suspending the evaluation of driver performance during autonomous control as taught in Smid. Having the ability to reduce the driver monitoring criteria during autonomous function frees the driver for other activities, reduces the chance of adversely changing the driver’s performance evaluation, and further reduces the amount of computing resources spent on the monitoring process.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsumura (JP 2018083517 A) as modified by VandenBerg (US 10611384 B1) in view of Ferguson (US 10029696 B1)
Claim 8:
Tsumura in combination with VandenBerg does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Ferguson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the tracking performance data includes adjusting the tracking performance data affected by a road hazard.
(Ferguson – [ col. 19, lines 61-67 and col. 20, lines 1-8 ] In step 508, if a computing device (e.g., driving analysis server 220) determines that a vehicle identified in step 504 performed a high-risk or unsafe driving event that caused the outlier to perform its high-risk or unsafe driving event in step 506, then the computing device may positively account for or ignore the outlier's high risk or unsafe driving event in its determination of the driver score for the outlier. Following the above example, if vehicle 710b swerved and cutoff vehicle 710a causing vehicle 710a to hard-brake in order to avoid an accident, then the hard-brake performed by vehicle 710a may be positively accounted for or ignored in the determination of the driver score for vehicle 710a. In instances where a driver score has already been computed for vehicle 710a, driving analysis server 220 may either maintain or positively adjust (e.g., increase) the driver score.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsumura and VandenBerg to include a method of suspending the evaluation of driver performance during hazard detection as taught in Ferguson. Having the ability to reduce the driver monitoring criteria during a hazard event reduces the chance of adversely changing the driver’s performance evaluation and further reduces the amount of computing resources spent on the monitoring process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Hiei (US 20180118219 A1) describes a system that includes processing circuitry configured to determine an actual driving performance of a driver in a manual driving mode and a projected driving performance if the vehicle had been operated in an autonomous driving mode, compare the driving performance in the manual driving mode and the autonomous driving mode, and transmit a feedback to the driver based on the comparison. The processing circuitry can be further configured to determine a driver state of the driver in the manual driving mode, determine 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.
McGill (US 10059336 B2) describes a system that dynamically adjusts a vehicle trajectory according to driver deviations. In one embodiment, a method includes generating expected inputs for controlling the vehicle along a segment of a roadway on which the vehicle is traveling by analyzing a present context of the vehicle using a driver model. The expected inputs as controls for operating the vehicle to maintain a preferred trajectory along the segment.
Shalev-Shwartz (US 20210179096 A1) describes a navigational system for a host vehicle, programmed to receive an image representative of an environment of the host vehicle; analyze the image to identify a navigational state associated with the host vehicle; and determine, based on the navigational state, a navigational action for the host vehicle based on a policy that maps possible navigational actions to sensed states. The navigational action may be based on a safety constraint applicable to the navigational state.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/
Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights