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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The RCE filed 2/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 remain pending in the application, and claim 8 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 11/25/2025. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Nagata does not disclose selecting a mode of operation for the target autonomous device based on the trust profile. The remarks indicate that the Specification describes aggressive, cautious, confirmation, or transparent modes of operation. Applicant suggests that Nagata merely discloses the level of autonomy that a surrounding vehicle is operating in. Similarly, Applicant contends that Donnelly does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Nagata involving selection of a mode of operation for the target autonomous device based on the trust profile.
Applicant's arguments are erroneous with regards to the disclosure of Nagata and the passage cited. The "surrounding vehicle" in the remarks appear to relate to paragraph [0049] of Nagata, which is not the cited passage. Additionally, in the proper citation area of paragraph [0059] the "different levels of autonomous driving" would be broadly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to quality as different modes of operation for the autonomous device. The claim recites no terminology regarding aggressive or conservative mode based on a trust profile or confidence score, and thus the disclosure of Nagata does not need to conform exactly to this language to disclose the contended claim limitation.
Ultimately, the arguments are not persuasive in view of the current claim limitations, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al., hereinafter Nagata (Document ID: US 20210034059 A1) in view of Donnelly (Document ID: US 20190047584 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 17, Nagata teaches a system for trust calibration and a computer implemented method for trust calibration, comprising:
a memory storing one or more instructions (memory 114);
a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory (ECU 112) to perform:
receiving a record of one or more interactions between a user and a first autonomous device (see at least P [0048]: “historical information may include an indication of a number of times that the driver of the vehicle 102 and/or drivers of other vehicles have turned on or off the autonomous driving at or near the location of the vehicle 102.” This historical data represents interactions with vehicles other than vehicle 102 as a first autonomous device. See also P [0052] wherein interaction types include the history of locations, the level of comfort, the frequency of use of autonomous driving (including engaging and disengaging autonomous driving), and/or the levels of autonomous driving.)
building a trust profile for the user based on one or more of the interactions between the user and the first autonomous device (confidence score 214, see at least P [0053] wherein the historical information and user profile 212 are used to create a confidence score, or trust profile); and
Nagata teaches operating a target autonomous device based on the trust profile by selecting a mode of operation for the target autonomous device based on the trust profile in at least P [0065] wherein the system activates autonomous driving in step 228 “based on the level of autonomous driving”. It should be noted that the level of autonomous driving is considered a mode of operation based on the trust profile, as indicated in P [0057]-[0058] which considered numerous vehicle occupants and a threshold comfort based on different levels of autonomous driving. See as well P [0059] which describes “when to activate different levels of autonomous driving” based on the trust profile, each of which can be considered a mode of operation. Lastly, P [0002] indicates that the system of Nagata has relevance for “personal transportation, ride-sharing and/or mass transportation” use cases.
Despite clear disclosure that Nagata associates the user profile to a direct user and not to a specific vehicle per se, Nagata is not explicitly teaching that the target autonomous device is a second autonomous device distinct from the first autonomous device.
Instead, Donnelly, whose invention pertains to adjusting autonomous vehicle parameters in response to passenger feedback, teaches a method for “improving passenger experiences for future autonomous driving sessions” (P [0019]). Specifically, Donnelly teaches an autonomous vehicle using a machine learning model that is able to learn from “previous passenger input data descriptive of passenger experiences and associated vehicle data logs that were previously collected during previous autonomous vehicle driving sessions” (P [0027]). In this case a second vehicle is operated as a target vehicle, and the vehicle is distinct from a previous vehicle which provided the passenger with previous experience.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the confidence building method of Nagata with the cumulative experience learning between vehicles of Donnelly in order to improve on previous methods of human review and provide improved passenger experiences based on real passenger feedback as in P [0023] and [0024] of Donnelly.
Regarding claim 11 specifically, the claim specifies receiving a trust profile in addition to the record of interactions, as well as updating the trust profile as opposed to building the trust profile, and Nagata teaches the user profile which may already include a confidence score that the system updates based on other conditions, see at least P [0052], P [0056], P [0073] and P [0078].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claims 1 and 11, and in view of the modification, Nagata further teaches that the processor performs:
receiving a record of one or more interactions between the user and the second autonomous device (in view of the modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the system of Nagata is thus applicable within a second autonomous device since the user profile would follow the user from vehicle to vehicle. Therefore in at least P [0067]: “an indicator that indicates the number of times that the autonomous driving was activated at the level of comfort from the user profile of the driver and increment the number of times to account for the current activation request” in relation to the current vehicle 102 that the user is in); and
building the trust profile for the user based on one or more of the interactions between the user and the second autonomous device (see at least P [0053]: “The confidence score represents a level of comfort of the driver with autonomous driving”. See also FIG. 3 and P [0070] wherein the comfort level is measured and compared to a threshold to further update the user profile in step 312, which is a component of the confidence score, or trust profile).
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 18, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 1, the system for trust calibration of claim 11, and the computer-implemented method for trust calibration of claim 17, and in view of the modification, Nagata further teaches that
the first autonomous device or the target autonomous device is an autonomous vehicle. (see at least P [0004]: “autonomous vehicle driving system”)
Regarding claim 9, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 1, and in view of the modification, Nagata further teaches that
the record of one or more interactions includes a number of interactions between the user and the first autonomous device. (see at least P [0048] “the historical information may include an indication of a number of times that the driver of the vehicle 102 and/or drivers of other vehicles have turned on or off the autonomous driving at or near the location of the vehicle 10”)
Claim(s) 4-6, 14-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of Donnelly, and further in view of Park et al., hereinafter Park (Document ID: US 20230145574 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 14, and 19, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 1, the system for trust calibration of claim 11, and the computer-implemented method for trust calibration of claim 17, and Nagata further teaches in P [0067] tracking the “number of times that autonomous driving has been activated at the level of comfort that the driver has with autonomous driving”, but Nagata and Donnelly do not explicitly teach a record of times between one or more of the interactions.
Instead, Park, whose invention pertains to grouping interaction data in accordance with the time of occurrence, teaches in at least P [0007] “a first data recorder that records a plurality of interaction data indicating timestamped interactions that occur between an autonomous driving system of a vehicle and a driver while driving, and a second data recorder that records event data indicating the state of the vehicle for a predetermined time before and after the event such as a collision accident occurs.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interaction record keeping of Nagata and Donnelly with the timestamped interaction data tracking of Park in order to properly document driver-vehicle interactions, especially when classifying and investigating events such as an accident (Park P [0006]).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 20, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 4, the system for trust calibration of claim 14, and the computer-implemented method for trust calibration of claim 17, but Nagata and Donnelly do not explicitly teach
an amount of time between a first interaction of one or more of the interactions and a second interaction of one or more of the interactions less than a threshold amount of time creates an association between the first interaction and the second interaction as a set of micro-interactions.
Instead, Park teaches in at least P [0051] that the event data recorded “within a predetermined time before and after the occurrence of the event may be stored in an internal storage”, indicating that the buffer, or threshold amount of time, is used to group the interactions as a set of interactions pertaining to the same event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interaction record keeping of Nagata and Donnelly with the buffer and interaction grouping of Park in order to prohibit overwriting data without first grouping and properly storing all data pertaining to a particular event.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 4 and the system for trust calibration of claim 14, but Nagata and Donnelly do not explicitly teach
an amount of time between a first interaction of one or more of the interactions and a second interaction of one or more of the interactions greater than a threshold amount of time creates a distinction between the first interaction and the second interaction as separate interactions.
Instead, Park teaches in P [0037] a number of “different time-stamped data elements representing specific interaction events”, indicating that the system uses the time stamps to differentiate between types of interaction data and separate events accordingly. Then in P [0039] Park teaches generating an event report for a particular event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interaction record keeping of Nagata and Donnelly with the time stamped interaction types and event report of Park in order to keep track of events, vehicle data, and relevant users involved in a particular interaction at a particular time.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata in view of Donnelly, and further in view of Sucan et al., hereinafter Sucan (Document ID: US 20200125989 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagata teaches the system for trust calibration of claim 1, and Nagata further teaches a network access device and an external database that are used for determining the confidence score, but Nagata and Donnelly do not explicitly that the record of one or more of the interactions between the user and the first autonomous device is received from a mobile device.
Instead, Sucan, whose invention pertains to assessing ride quality for autonomous vehicles, teaches in at least FIGs. 4-5 and P [0040] a plurality of computing devices that transmit data between each other and to the vehicle about a user’s experience with an autonomous device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information collection hardware and network access of Nagata and Donnelly with the mobile devices of Sucan in order to create personalized user profiles as well as allow for personal access to shared autonomous vehicle systems as in Sucan P [0053].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20190286133 A1
Invention pertains to characterizing a driving style of an autonomous vehicle.
NPL Reference: Toward Adaptive Driving Styles for Automated Driving with Users' Trust and Preferences
Work pertains to an evaluation of users’ trust as compared to AV driving styles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights