DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment, filed 18 March 2026, which was in reply to the non-final action, dated 14 January 2026 (hereafter Action).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-19 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 9 and 19 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the limitations (pgs. 3-6, Action) “a graphics module for outputting information” (claim 8), “an input module for receiving a user input” (claim 8), “a planning module for adjusting the route” (claim 8) and “at least one graphical operating element for adjusting a starting time” (claim 9), applicant’s amendments and arguments do not address the interpretations and thus the interpretations are maintained, as discussed below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 9 (pgs. 7-24, Action), applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 13, 16 and 18 in view of Abe, Piemonte, Christensen and Hobbs; claims 5 and 14 in view of Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Baker; and claims 17 and 19 in view of Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Cohen, as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a graphics module for outputting information ... (claim 8; see specification at [00036] disclosing that [t]he graphics module 22, the input module 23, the planning module 24, as well as the control module 25 may be realized as dedicated hardware, for instance, as integrated circuits, and may also be partly or completely combined or implemented as software running on a suitable processor, for instance, on a GPU or a CPU. The input 21 and the output 27 may be implemented as separate interfaces or as a combined bidirectional interface);
“an input module for receiving a user input ... “ (claim 8; see specification at [00036]);
“a planning module for adjusting the route ... “ (claim 8; see specification at [00036] ); and
“at least one graphical operating element for adjusting a starting time ...” (claim 9; see specification at [00041]; [00043]; [00044], see also Figs. 5, 6 and 7 showing graphical operating element 54], Fig. 8 showing graphic element 56, both the graphical operating elements 54 and 56, shown as block type areas of the user interface 50).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The graphics module is being interpreted as an interface implemented as software running on a suitable processor on a GPU or a CPU (see [00036]). The input module is being interpreted as an input interface implemented as software running on a suitable processor on a GPU or a CPU (see [00036]). The planning module is being interpreted as an input or output interface implemented as software running on a suitable processor on a GPU or a CPU (see [000036]). The graphical operating element is being interpreted as block type areas of the user interface 50 (see Figs. 5, 6, 7 and 8, [00041]; [00043]; [00044]).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 12, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0308094 to Abe et al. (hereafter Abe) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0283896 to Piemonte et al. (hereafter Piemonte) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0008523 to Christensen et al. (hereafter Christensen).
As per claim 1, Abe discloses [a] method for controlling facilitation and adjustment of a route to a destination for a transportation vehicle having an automated driving function to facilitate optimum use of the automated driving function for a user of the transportation vehicle (see at least Abe, Abstract, disclosing that a factor acquisition section, of an automated driving controller is configured to acquire a factor which is independent of travel requirements for the vehicle to travel by autonomously driving along the route to the destination. The automated driving controller changes the plan of the automated driving based on the factor acquired by the factor acquisition section), the method comprising:
outputting information corresponding to sections of the route to the user of the transportation vehicle by a user interface (see at least Abe, [0047] disclosing that the navigation device 50 provides voice guidance or navigating display of the route while the vehicle control system 100 is executing a manual driving mode. The configuration to specify the position of the vehicle M may be provided independently of the navigation device 50. The navigation device 50 may be implemented by the function of a user's terminal device such as a smartphone or a tablet terminal, for example. In this case, the terminal device and vehicle control system 100 exchange information through wireless or wired communication; [0121]); ... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ... (5) ... ; and
in response to the received user input indicating instructions regarding a route section included in the sections of the route that is permitted to be driven autonomously including a start or and end time (see at least Abe, [0011] disclosing that disclosing that the factor is a target time of arrival at the destination which is set by the occupant <interpreted as the end time of the route section>, and the automated driving controller performs speed adjustment or detour control of the vehicle to delay arrival at the destination when the vehicle is estimated to arrive at the destination before the target time of arrival; [0086] disclosing that changing the plan of automated driving include some or all of: changing an action plan generated by the action plan generating section 144; changing the mode of automated driving determined by the automated driving mode controller 130; changing the route to the destination calculated by the navigation device 50 <interpreted as instructions regarding the route section included in sections of the route>; and changing the target lane determined by the target lane determination section 110; [0139]),
determining a range in which the user is permitted to instruct adjustment of autonomous operation of the transportation vehicle on permitted route sections to ensure traffic safety to comply with the instructed start time or end time of the route selection (see at least Abe, [0008] disclosing that the particular action is viewing of a content, and the automated driving controller adjusts a duration of the automated driving to an estimated end time of the content <interpreted as the range> ; [0011] disclosing that disclosing that the factor is a target time of arrival at the destination which is set by the occupant, and the automated driving controller performs speed adjustment or detour control of the vehicle to delay arrival at the destination when the vehicle is estimated to arrive at the destination before the target time of arrival; [0139]; [0139]);
controlling adjustment of the route to enable autonomous operation of the vehicle for a period of time that matches a required period of non-driving activities of the user during traverse of the adjusted route to the destination based on the determined range of permitted adjustment by the user for traffic safety (see at least Abe, [0111]; [0112]; [0113] disclosing that he action plan changing section 145 determines whether the vehicle M can arrive at the destination before the end of the acquired schedule of the particular action (step S104). The action plan changing section 145 performs the determination of the step S104 by comparing the expected end time of the particular action acquired from the schedule of the particular action with the expected arrival time calculated from the plan of automated driving generated by the action plan generating section 144. The expected arrival time is obtained based on information including average speed for each travel route acquired from an external device through the communication device 55, the position of the vehicle M, and the remaining distance to the destination; [0114] disclosing that the action plan changing section 145 changes the plan of automated driving when the vehicle M is estimated to arrive at the destination before the end of the schedule of the particular action (step S106). The action plan changing section 145 changes the plan of automated driving based on the expected end time of the particular action, for example. The vehicle M is therefore scheduled to arrive at the destination after the program that the user wants to watch is finished. This can widen the range of usages of the vehicle M based on the occupant's intention), ... (6) ... . But, Abe does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Piemonte:
(4) receiving the user’s selection .... (see at least Piemonte, Fig. 7; [0035] disclosing that the timeline 106 represents an upcoming schedule of autonomous decisions by the vehicle, actions that will be taken by the vehicle based on user input and/or autonomous decisions <interpreted as user input from the user>, and/or other events or actions. For example, if the vehicle is being manually driven and can transition into an autonomously driven mode, the point of transition may be presented via the timeline 106. Similarly, the timeline 106 may distinguish spans of travel at which the drive is autonomous from spans of travel at which the drive is manual or semi-autonomous. For example, the spans of travel may be distinguished through color coding and/or other visual representations; [0070] disclosing with regard to FIG. 7, that the user may tap the delay sections of the timeline 300 to display a map 320 showing route and traffic details or other details pertaining to the delay. The timeline 300 may notify the user of a traffic increase and indicate that the vehicle is in the process of rerouting around the traffic or present the user with rerouting options. Once the route is changed, the timeline 300 is updated the scale and duration of the updated route reflected accordingly; [0066] disclosing that the timeline 300 may be used to specify: a destination point to drop off a passenger; a destination point to park after dropping off the passenger; and a time and destination point (e.g., at the drop off destination point or another destination point) to pick up the passenger <interpreted as end time>) ... . But, neither Abe nor Piemonte explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Christensen:
(1) wherein the output information corresponds to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097] disclosing that one driving mode is a manual driving mode 118 corresponding to level 0 of the classification system and corresponding to the third parts 119 of the scheduled route. Another driving mode is a pilot assisted driving mode 120 corresponding to level 2 of the classification system and corresponding to the first parts 121 of the scheduled route. Yet another driving mode is an auto pilot or autonomous driving mode 122 corresponding to level 3 of the classification system and corresponding to the second parts 123 of the scheduled route. Each circle part 118, 120, 122, has a length corresponding to the part of the route where this driving mode is assigned);
(2) wherein information about at least one non-driving activity is output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]);
(3) wherein the information about the at least one non-driving activity is represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]; [0099] disclosing that FIG. 4 schematically illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the system. The system 124 may comprise an assignment unit 102 and a proposal unit 106 which together calculate the efficient use of time. The system 124 may calculate or use as input the current or planned driving mode 126. The driving mode of the vehicle 108 may be based on one or more first parameters 127, such as determined by sensors 128 in the vehicle 108, driver input 130 and/or passengers 132; [0100] disclosing that the system 124 may predict the different driving modes of the different the parts of the route, e.g. in the form of the time available in the different driving modes on the route. The system 124 may determine the driving mode based on one or more first parameters 127, such as by using map information 134 as input for this determination. The map information 134 may enable prediction of the type, location and duration of different driving modes, which may be termed driving mode support, en route to destination based on map data);
(6) wherein in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user is calculated and output to the user (see at least Christensen, [0083]; [0102] disclosing The system 124 may determine which type of activities 138 and media content 146 should be available, e.g., auditory, visual and/or manual, in the different driving modes based on one or more second parameters 141. The activities 138 may be based on second parameters 141 such as calendar appointments 142. The activities 138 may be based on second parameters 141 such as a personal profile 144. The personal profile 144 may comprise e.g. calendar appointments, to-do lists, planned activities, and personal preferences; [0103] disclosing that For example for the autonomous driving mode corresponding to level 3 of the classification system, the input and output modalities may be visual and manual, and thus proposals for activities, i.e. the second activities 140, may comprise video podcasts, email reading, text input etc.; [0104] disclosing with regard to Fig. 4 that the system 124 may calculate an appropriate route 156 based on e.g. the personal profile 144, if there are more routes 156 available to the destination. The map 158 shows that two routes 156 are available to the destination. The route to the left in the map 158 may be a route comprising mainly pilot assisted driving and the route to the right in the map 158 may be a route comprising mainly autonomous driving. Based on the driver's personal profile 144 one of these two routes may be preferred and thus selected as the appropriate route). But, neither Abe, Piemonte nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Hobbs:
(5) receiving the user's selection of at least one route section that is permitted to be driven autonomously for the user and at least one non-driving activity represented together with the at least one route section permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline (see at least Hobbs, Fig. 10, showing portions of a route in Autonomous Mode and Manual Mode, and suggestions of reading e-mails, route 1, and TV shows, route 2 <interpreted as non-driving activities represented together with the section permitting autonomous driving>; col. 13, ln. 58 to col. 14, Ln. 16, disclosing that the computer may then provide the proposed routes and control information as routing options to the driver. For example, a given proposed route may be displayed to a user with information such as a total time for the route <interpreted as start time and end time > and a map depicting the given proposed route as with typical navigational systems. The computer may also provide details such as the time of the longest stretch of driving associated with the autonomous mode as well as map information highlighting the location of the route including information indicating which portions of the routes are associated with the type of control. In another example, computer 110 may provide information regarding not only the total time of the route but also the total time in the various driving modes. FIG. 10 is one example of how computer 110 may provide the proposed routing options to the driver, though various other methods may also be used. FIG. 10 may thus include an example screen shot of touch screen 217 and/or display 225. In this example, computer 110 displays a set of routing options 1010, 1020 to the driver. Routing option 1010 includes Route 1 between initial and destination locations A and B depicted on map 1030 via River Road, while routing option 1020 includes Route 2 between initial and destination locations A and B via First Avenue. The routing options in this example include a total estimated travel time for each route as well as a time for the longest autonomous portion of each route; col. 14, Lns. 17-34, disclosing that computer 110 may also provide the control information determined for the routing options to the driver. For example, computer 110 may designate the portions of the route associated with different modes of driving (as determined from the probability of failure and thresholds described above). In the example of FIG. 10, key 1040 distinguishes between the different operating modes based on the type of line displayed on map 1030, this information may be displayed in other ways, such as by different colors, line widths, etc. Thus, in this example, Route 1 begins at location A in the autonomous mode, switches to a manual mode, and then concludes in an autonomous mode at location B. Route 2 begins at location A in the manual mode and subsequently switches to an autonomous mode until reaching location B. In this example, once the driver has decided upon a routing option, the driver may select that option and select button 1050 to begin the selected routing option in the predetermined driving mode) ... .
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen and Hobbs are analogous art to claim 1 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as disclosed in Abe, to provide the benefit of (4) receiving the user’s selection, as disclosed in Piemonte, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the interaction of the user with the vehicle (see at least Piemonte, [0003], [0019]).
It would further be obvious to modify the method, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte, to provide the benefit of (1) having the output information correspond to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface, (2) having the information about at least one non-driving activity be output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user, (3) having the information about the at least one non-driving activity be represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user, and (6) having a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user be calculated and output to the user in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, as disclosed in Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of an autonomous driving mode to enable activities the driver may engage in activities which may not be possible while the vehicle is in a manual driving mode (see at least Christensen, [0003]).
It would still further be obvious to modify the method, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte and Christensen, to provide the benefit of (5) ... as disclosed in Hobbs, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by informing the driver of the need to take control of the vehicle until immediately before such a change is necessary (see Hobbs, col. 1, lns. 25-31).
As per claim 3, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Piemonte further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the user input is input by the user controlling the user interface to shift a graphical operating element displayed on of the user interface (see at least Piemonte, [0070] disclosing with regard to Fig. 7 that sections of the timeline 300 may be expanded or collapsed to show more or less detail regarding the travel path or associated information. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the timeline 300 may display duration information 322, such as a speed or energy used over time. The duration information 322 may be historical information between two points and/or predicted information between two points, such as the current location 304 and the final destination 308 <interpreted as shifting the graphical operating element>).
As per claim 4, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Piemonte further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, for adjusting the route, an arrival time or an average speed for at least one route section is changed (see at least Piemonte, [0065] disclosing that the timeline 300 automatically adjusts a visual scale of the travel path and updates the estimated time of arrival at the final destination point 312 accordingly. Once the vehicle arrives at the additional waypoint destination 312, the timeline 300 prompts the user to continue along the travel path to the final destination 308 and stacks the additional waypoint destination 312 with the other past destinations; [0069] disclosing that he timeline 300 may inform the user of any travel conditions along the travel path. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 6, the timeline 300 may provide a notification of an upcoming travel obstacle and inform the user that the vehicle is guiding around the obstacle <interpreted as adjusting the route>. As shown in FIG. 6, the obstacle notification may include an alert bubble 314 indicating the current location 304 relative to the obstacle. The obstacle notification may additionally or alternatively provide a guiding bubble 316 showing more detail regarding the location of the obstacle relative to the vehicle). Abe further disclose the following limitation:
... adjustment of the route adjusts an arrival time at a destination of or an average speed for at least one route section (see at least Abe, [0011] disclosing that the factor is a target time of arrival at the destination which is set by the occupant, and the automated driving controller performs speed adjustment or detour control of the vehicle to delay arrival at the destination when the vehicle is estimated to arrive at the destination before the target time of arrival).
As per claim 7, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Piemonte further discloses the following limitation:
A non-transitory computer readable medium including a computer program comprising instructions, which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to claim 1 for controlling facilitation and adjustment of adjusting the route for the transportation vehicle with having an automated driving function to facilitate optimum use of the automated driving function for a user of the transportation vehicle (see at least Piemonte, [0091] disclosing that computer program products containing mechanisms to effectuate the systems and methods in accordance with the presently described technology may reside in the data storage devices 604 and/or the memory devices 606, which may be referred to as machine-readable media. It will be appreciated that machine-readable media may include any tangible non-transitory medium that is capable of storing or encoding instructions to perform any one or more of the operations of the present disclosure for execution by a machine or that is capable of storing or encoding data structures and/or modules utilized by or associated with such instructions).
As per claim 8, similar to claim 1, Abe discloses [a] device controlling facilitation and adjustment of a route for a transportation vehicle with an automated driving function to facilitate optimum use of the automated driving function for a user of the transportation vehicle (see at least Abe, Abstract), the method comprising:
a graphics module configured to output information corresponding to sections of a route by a user interface (see at least Abe, [0047]; [0121]); ... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ... (5) ... ; and
a planning module configured to control adjustment the route in response to received user input indicating instructions regarding a route section included in the sections of the route that is permitted to be driven autonomously including a start time and an end time (see at least Abe, [0011]; [0047] ; [0086]; [0139]),
determining a range in which the user is permitted to instruct adjustment of autonomous operation of the transportation vehicle on permitted route sections to ensure traffic safety to comply with the instructed start or end time of the route selection (see at least Abe, [0008] ; [0011]; [0139]);
controlling adjustment of the route to enable autonomous operation of the vehicle for a period of time that matches a required period of non-driving activities of the user during traverse of the adjusted route to the destination taking into consideration the determined range of permitted adjustment by the user for traffic safety (see at least Abe, [0111]; [0112]; [0113]; [0114]) ... ; ... (6) ... . But, Abe does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Piemonte:
(4) receiving the user’s selection... (see at least Piemonte, Fig. 7; [0035]; [0070]; [0066]) ... . But, neither Abe nor Piemonte explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Christensen:
(1) wherein the output information corresponds to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]);
(2) wherein information about at least one non-driving activity is output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]);
(3) wherein the information about the at least one non-driving activity is represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]; [0099]; [0100]);
(6) wherein in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user is calculated and output to the user (see at least Christensen, [0083]; [0102]; [0103]; [0104]). But, neither Abe, Piemonte nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Hobbs:
(5) receiving the user's selection of at least one route section that is permitted to be driven autonomously for the user and at least one non-driving activity represented together with the at least one route section permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline (see at least Hobbs, Fig. 10, showing portions of a route in Autonomous Mode and Manual Mode, and suggestions of reading e-mails, route 1, and TV shows, route 2 <interpreted as non-driving activities represented together with the section permitting autonomous driving>; col. 13, ln. 58 to col. 14, Ln. 16; col. 14, Lns. 17-34) ... .
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen and Hobbs are analogous art to claim 8 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Abe, to provide the benefit of (4) receiving the user’s selection, as disclosed in Piemonte, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the interaction of the user with the vehicle (see at least Piemonte, [0003], [0019]).
It would further be obvious to modify the device, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte, to provide the benefit of (1) having the output information correspond to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface, (2) having the information about at least one non-driving activity be output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user, (3) having the information about the at least one non-driving activity be represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user, and (6) having a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user be calculated and output to the user in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, as disclosed in Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of an autonomous driving mode to enable activities the driver may engage in activities which may not be possible while the vehicle is in a manual driving mode (see at least Christensen, [0003]).
It would still further be obvious to modify the device, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte and Christensen, to provide the benefit of (5) ... as disclosed in Hobbs, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by informing the driver of the need to take control of the vehicle until immediately before such a change is necessary (see Hobbs, col. 1, lns. 25-31).
As per claim 9, similar to claims 1 and 8, Abe discloses [a] user interface used in controlling facilitation and adjustment of a route for a transportation vehicle having an automated driving function to facilitate optimum use of the automated driving function for a user of the transportation vehicle (see at least Abe, Abstract), wherein the user interface comprises:
output information about sections of the route for review by a user of the transportation vehicle (see at least Abe, [0047]; [0121]), ... (1) ... , ... (2) ... , ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ... (5) ... ; and
at least one graphical operating element configured to enable adjustment of a starting time or an end time of the route section included in the sections of the route to be driven under supervision (see at least Abe, [0011]; [0047]; [0086]; [0131]; [0139]),
wherein the user interface is configured to trigger adjustment of the route ... (1) ... indicating instructions regarding a route section included in the sections of the route that is permitted to be driven autonomously provided that the adjustment instructions are within a permitted range of instructions for adjusting the autonomous operation of the transportation vehicle on permitted route sections to ensure traffic safety to comply with instructed start time or end time of the route section (see at least Abe, [0008]; [0011]; [0139] ),
whereby adjustment of the route is controlled to enable autonomous operation of the transportation vehicle for a period of time that matches a required period of non-driving activities of the user during traverse of the adjusted route to the destination based on the determined range of permitted adjustment by the user for traffic safety (see at least Abe, [0111]; [0112]; [0113]; [0114]) ... (6) ... . But, Abe does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Piemonte
(4) user interface is configured to trigger adjustment of the route ... (1) ... in response to the received user input ... (see at least Piemonte, Fig. 7; [0035]; [0070]; [0066]) ... . But, neither Abe nor Piemonte explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Christensen:
(1) wherein the output information corresponds to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]);
(2) wherein information about at least one non-driving activity is output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]);
(3) wherein the information about the at least one non-driving activity is represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user (see at least Christensen, Fig. 3(b); [0097]; [0099]; [0100]);
(6) wherein in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user is calculated and output to the user (see at least Christensen, [0083]; [0102]; [0103]; [0104]). But, neither Abe, Piemonte nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Hobbs:
(5) receiving the user's selection of at least one route section that is permitted to be driven autonomously for the user and at least one non-driving activity represented together with the at least one route section permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline (see at least Hobbs, Fig. 10, showing portions of a route in Autonomous Mode and Manual Mode, and suggestions of reading e-mails, route 1, and TV shows, route 2 <interpreted as non-driving activities represented together with the section permitting autonomous driving>; col. 13, ln. 58 to col. 14, Ln. 16,; col. 14, Lns. 17-34) ... .
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen and Hobbs are analogous art to claim 9 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface, as disclosed in Abe, to provide the benefit of (4) receiving the user’s selection, as disclosed in Piemonte, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the interaction of the user with the vehicle (see at least Piemonte, [0003], [0019]).
It would further be obvious to modify the user interface, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte, to provide the benefit of (1) having the output information correspond to the sections of the route and are output by the user interface as a timeline displayed on the user interface, (2) having the information about at least one non-driving activity be output in relation to the route on the timeline to enable comparison of non-driving activities and route sections that are permitted to be autonomously driven for the user, (3) having the information about the at least one non-driving activity be represented together with the route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user on the timeline for selection by the user, and (6) having a suggested adjustment of the route sections to be driven autonomously for the user to enable the selected non-driving activities of the user be calculated and output to the user in response to selected non-driving activities of the user not matching route sections that are permitted to be driven autonomously for the user, as disclosed in Christensen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of an autonomous driving mode to enable activities the driver may engage in activities which may not be possible while the vehicle is in a manual driving mode (see at least Christensen, [0003]).
It would still further be obvious to modify the user interface, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte and Christensen, to provide the benefit of (5) ... as disclosed in Hobbs, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by informing the driver of the need to take control of the vehicle until immediately before such a change is necessary (see Hobbs, col. 1, lns. 25-31).
As per claim 10, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Abe further discloses the following limitation:
A transportation vehicle, comprises the device of claim 8 (see at least Abe, Fig. 1 showing components of a control system mounted on a vehicle; [0039]).
As per claim 12, similar to claim 3, the combination of Abe, Piemonte and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Piemonte further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the user input by the user controlling the user interface to shift a graphical operating element of the user interface (see at least Piemonte, [0070]).
As per claims 13, similar to claim 4, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Piemonte further discloses the following limitation:
wherein, the adjustment of the route adjusts an arrival time at a destination or an average speed for at least one route section is changed (see at least Piemonte, [0065]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Abe further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment determines whether a resulting reduction of the average speed neither impairs traffic security nor disrupts traffic flow (see at least Abe, [0095] disclosing that the evaluation and selection section 146C evaluates the trajectory candidates generated by the trajectory candidate generating section 146B from two viewpoints of planning and safety, for example, and selects a trajectory to be outputted to the travel controller 160).
As per claim 18, similar to claim 16, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Abe further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment determines whether a resulting reduction of the average speed neither impairs traffic security nor disrupts traffic flow (see at least Abe, [0095] disclosing that the evaluation and selection section 146C evaluates the trajectory candidates generated by the trajectory candidate generating section 146B from two viewpoints of planning and safety, for example, and selects a trajectory to be outputted to the travel controller 160).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0208498 to Baker et al. (hereafter Baker).
As per claim 5, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Abe further discloses the following limitation:
... boundary conditions for the route section to calculate an extent to which average velocities and arrival time require adjustment (see at least Abe, [0011]). But, neither Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baker:
wherein the control of the adjustment of the route is also based on the analysis of boundary conditions for a change of the average speed for a route section, ... (see Baker, Claim 1, and [0114] disclosing (with respect to Fig. 7J) that in response to the user's selection of the Speed control 7008, the map has been annotated with a number in a box for each road segment to numerically indicate information about average speed for the associated road segment, and in particular in this example to display a comparative number of how many miles per hour faster or slower that the target traffic conditions speed <interpreted as boundary conditions> for the selected time is relative to the expected traffic conditions speed for the selected time).
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Baker are analogous art to claim 5 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract). Baker relates to techniques for displaying road traffic condition information and associated user controls (see at least Baker, [0003]).
Therefore it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method, as discloses in Abe as modified by Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen, to provide the benefit having control of the adjustment of the route be also based on the analysis of boundary conditions for a change of the average speed for a route section, as disclosed in Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved techniques for displaying and otherwise providing information about traffic conditions to users (see at least Baker [0006]).
As per claim 14, similar to claim 5, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen discloses all of the limitations of claim 13, as shown above. But neither Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitation taught by Baker:
wherein the control of the adjustment of the route is also based on the analysis of boundary conditions for a change of the average speed for a route section to calculate an extent to which average velocities and arrival time require adjustment (see Baker, Claim 1, and [0114]).
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Baker are analogous art to claim 14 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract). Baker relates to techniques for displaying road traffic condition information and associated user controls (see at least Baker, [0003]).
Therefore it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Abe, as modified by Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen, to provide the benefit having the boundary conditions for the route section considered, in response to changing the average speed for a route section, as disclosed in Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved techniques for displaying and otherwise providing information about traffic conditions to users (see at least Baker [0006]).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0403033 to Cohen et al. (hereafter Cohen).
As per claim 17, the combination of Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen disclose all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. But, neither Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Cohen:
wherein the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment analyzes individual autonomously driven and manually driven route sections, the maximum speeds on individual route sections or the minimal speeds on the individual route sections (see at least Cohen, Abstract, disclosing that a simulation may be used to determine a difference between progress of a manually-driven vehicle and progress of a simulated autonomous vehicle. The method includes retrieving log data collected for the manually-driven vehicle driving along a route, generating a plurality of path segments for a portion of the route. The plurality of path segments corresponds to points in a lane that the manually-driven vehicle traveled through on the portion of the route. The method also includes running, using a software of the autonomous vehicle, a simulation of the autonomous vehicle driving along the plurality of path segments, extracting metrics from the log data and the simulation, and determining the difference between a first progress of the manually-driven vehicle and a second progress of the simulated autonomous vehicle based on the metrics; [0004] disclosing that the determining of the difference between the first progress of the manually-driven vehicle and the second progress of the simulated autonomous vehicle based on the metrics includes computing a first distance traveled by the manually-driven vehicle along the portion of the route within an amount of time, computing a second distance traveled by the simulated autonomous vehicle along the portion of the route within the amount of time, and determining the difference to be the simulated autonomous vehicle progressed less than the manually-driven vehicle when the first distance is greater than the second distance. In a further example, the determining of the difference between the first progress of the manually-driven vehicle and the second progress of the simulated autonomous vehicle based on the metrics includes computing a first distance traveled by the manually-driven vehicle along the portion of the route within an amount of time, computing a second distance traveled by the simulated autonomous vehicle along the portion of the route within the amount of time, and determining the difference to be the simulated autonomous vehicle progressed further than the manually-driven vehicle when the first distance is less than the second distance; [0063] disclosing that the results of the simulation may correspond to the event data of log data, and may therefore include information such as collisions or near collisions with other objects, planned trajectories describing a planned geometry and/or speed for a potential path of the simulated autonomous vehicle, locations of the simulated vehicle at different times, orientations/headings of the simulated autonomous vehicle at different times, speeds, accelerations and decelerations of the simulated autonomous vehicle at different times in the simulation, classifications of and responses to perceived objects, behavior predictions of perceived objects, status of various simulated systems (such as acceleration, deceleration, perception, steering, signaling, routing, power, etc.) of the simulated autonomous vehicle at different times including logged errors, inputs to and outputs of the various systems of the simulated autonomous vehicle at different times in the simulation, etc.; [0064-[0067]).
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Cohen are analogous art to claim 17 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract). Cohen relates to determining a difference between progress of a manually-driven vehicle and progress of a simulated autonomous vehicle (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen, to provide the benefit of having the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment analyze individual autonomously driven and manually driven route sections, the maximum speeds on individual route sections or the minimal speeds on the individual route sections, as disclosed in Cohen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of the having the method be validated before using the vehicle (see at least Cohen, [0001]).
As per claim 19, similar to claim 17, the combination of Abe, Christensen, Hobbs and Piemonte disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as shown above. But, neither Abe, Piemonte, Hobbs nor Christensen explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Cohen:
wherein the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment analyzes individual autonomously driven and manually driven route sections, the maximum speeds on individual route sections or the minimal speeds on the individual route sections (see at least Cohen, Abstract; [0004]; [0063]; [0064-[0067]).
Abe, Piemonte, Christensen, Hobbs and Cohen are analogous art to claim 19 because they are directed toward a user interface for adjusting a route. Abe relates to a vehicle control system that includes an automated driving control that is configured to change the plan of the automated driving based on a factor (see at least Abe, Abstract). Piemonte relates to an interactive user interface that provides information relating to operation of an autonomous machine (see at least Piemonte, [0002]). Christensen relates to a system, vehicle, interface and method in a vehicle for planning activities for a driver of the vehicle, where a scheduled route is planned for the vehicle to drive along (see Christensen, Abstract). Hobbs relates to providing route options for an autonomous vehicle (see Hobbs, Abstract). Cohen relates to determining a difference between progress of a manually-driven vehicle and progress of a simulated autonomous vehicle (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Abe as modified by Piemonte, Hobbs and Christensen, to provide the benefit of having the determination of the permitted range of user adjustment analyze individual autonomously driven and manually driven route sections, the maximum speeds on individual route sections or the minimal speeds on the individual route sections, as disclosed in Cohen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of the having the method be validated before using the vehicle (see at least Cohen, [0001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0326027, see at least Fig. 4 and 5 showing timelines and [0059] disclosing that .
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights