DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-25 are pending. Claims 17-24 have been previously withdrawn in response to the restriction requirement filed 06/10/2025. Claim 25 has been newly added and claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-16 and 25 are examined. Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 16, 25 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 3-9, and 16 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 03/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 03/02/2026, “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 03/02/2026, on page 16, title “Rejections of Claims under 35 U.S.C § 103”, with respect to amended claims 1 (similarly, claims 3, 7, and 8), have been persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, the claims as amended have overcome the prior art of record, Oba. With respect to amended claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, the newly added limitation of “the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control are executed only in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings.”, clarifies the definition of the two execution pattern states as being executed only in the automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surroundings. Accordingly, Oba fails to explicitly disclose “notify the change of the execution pattern state when the congestion-limited control is switched to the area-limited control”. In fact, Oba, teaches notifying the driver when there is a change from automated driving to manual driving but Oba is silent about notifying a switching of execution control patterns while the automated driving is only executed in the automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surroundings. A new ground of rejection has been applied for the rejection of forgoing claims. Please see office action below.
Further, applicant’s arguments regarding claims 9 and 16, have been fully considered but are not, respectfully, persuasive. With respect to claims 9 and 16, although the same definition (as in claim 1) for “congestion-limit control” and “area-limit control” has been added to those claims, however, the limitation of “prompting the driver to monitor the surrounding” changes the interpretation of the execution control patterns (i.e. congestion-limited control and area-limited control) for forgoing claims. Although the forgoing claims recite that congestion and area limited controls are executed only in the automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surrounding, but limitation of notifying to prompt the driver to monitor the surrounding, conflicts with that definition. Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of “congestion and area limited control” for currently amended claims 9 and 16 is different from claim 1: As mentioned above, the execution patterns, according to the claims, are “congestion-limited control” and “area-limited control”, that “are executed only in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings”. Further, according to the limitation of ““prompting the driver to monitor the surrounding” and further specification of the instant application, e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0026], congestion-limited control is performed with the vehicle occupant such as driver being prompted to perform periphery monitoring and the area-limited control execution pattern only executed for a specific area and is when there is no surrounding monitoring obligation for the driver, and further according to the specification of instant application, paragraph [0053], “traffic-congestion limited control (hereinafter, a traffic congestion level 3) is implemented only during traveling in traffic congestion, and an area limited control (hereinafter area level 3) that is implemented only in the permission area”. Accordingly, this is the office stance that the congestion-limited control and area-limited control, respectively, reads on level 3 and level 4 of autonomy as disclosed in Oba’ disclosure. As disclosed by Oba, in both level 3 and level 4, there is no obligation for the driver to monitor the surrounding, while in level 3, the driver might be notified to be in a ready position to handover in upcoming road section. According to paragraphs [0149] and [0150] of Oba, the vehicle control system in level 3 can execute all the driving task for a limited region while the driver can do a secondary task (no obligation to monitor the surrounding). Further, according to paragraph [0152]-[0153] of Oba, level 4 is fully automated driving and driver can take a nap as an example without any requirement for the driver to be ready for any possible responsive operation. Therefore, both level 3 and level 4 are automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surrounding, therefore, reads on two forgoing execution patterns as recited in the claims 9 and 16. According to this interpretation, the previous rejections over Oba in view of Yoshiba presented in Final Office Action filed on 12/31/2025 (or as currently presented in the office action below, with an alternative rejection, over Oba in view of Oba’ 944) has been maintained (Please, see office action below).
Further regarding applicant arguments in Remarks filed on 03/02/2026, applicant argued (Argument 1) that Oba fails to teach/suggest claimed level switching between the particular execution pattern. As discussed above and further in office action below, according to the examiner’s interpretation of these patterns being level 3 and level 4 for claims 9 and 16, Oba according to at least paragraph [0607], disclose switching between level 3 and level 4 with respect to a number of factors that determines ODD (operation design domain) based on a situation of road section, and accordingly applicant’s argument, respectfully, is not persuasive and this is the office stance that the combination of Oba with prior arts relied upon arrive at the claimed invention as currently presented in claim 9 and 16.
Also, Applicant argued (Argument 2) that the cited art emphasizes handover related notification, not an eyes-off internal mode change schedule notification that preserves the non-monitoring state. This argument is, respectfully, not persuasive with regard to claims 9 and 16. For the reason detailed above, this is the office stance that the combination of prior arts relied upon arrive at the claimed invention as currently presented in claim 9 and 16.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the period has been missed at the end of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 16 recite notify to prompt the driver to monitor the surroundings when the execution pattern state of the automated driving is switched from one of the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control to the other while the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings is continued, and further in both claims, the area-limited control and congestion-limited control have been defined as wherein the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control are executed only in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings. It is unclear to the examiner that why, if according to the recited definition there is no obligation for the driver to monitor the surrounding, the system would notify to prompt the driver to monitor the surrounding when the execution pattern state of the automated driving is switched between these two execution patterns. Therefore, this is the office stance that the claim is indefinite because this indefiniteness would affect the examiner’s interpretation. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation the congestion-limited control has been interpreted as level 3 of autonomy when the vehicle is fully automated and the driver can temporarily do a secondary task while he has to be in an attentive and ready position to monitor the surrounding if necessitates. And, area-limited control has been interpreted as fully automated when driver can do a secondary task like taking a nap.
Claims 10-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) as being dependent on the rejected claim 9.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ichioka et al., US20160221585, hereinafter “Ichioka”.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, Ichioka discloses A presentation control device (and a non-transitory computer -readable medium storing a computer program comprising instruction to be executed by a processor) for a vehicle having an automated driving function capable of performing automated driving without driver's obligation to monitor surroundings (at least [0003], “Such automated driving, which is conducted by a control device of the vehicle regardless of human driver's intention”, [0015], “an information provision device”, [0018]-[0019], [0064], “an automated driving control unit”, [0105], “process steps”, [0111], “sequence of processing by the automated driving control unit”, Fig. 2 __ Note: the reference discloses an information provision method and device for notifying the occupant of an autonomous vehicle about the variations in behavior of the vehicle that reads on the recited limitation__), the presentation control device being configured to (and the computer program being for) control presentation of information related to the automated driving (at least [0006], [0018], “notifying occupants (e.g., a driver and his or her fellow occupant(s)) of information about automated control of a vehicle A of which at least part or the whole of driving operation is automatically controlled [] before or after actually varying the behavior of the vehicle A under the automated control.”, __ Note: process steps according to paragraph [0105], and [0111], reads on computer program__), the presentation control device comprising: a processor configured to: execute the automated driving function in an execution pattern state selected from among execution patterns in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings ([0019], “the variations in behavior of the vehicle A that are to be executed next by a vehicle control device 4”, [0021], “The automated control information is information about the particulars of the automated control that are to be executed next by the vehicle control device 4, including the timing when to start deceleration, the extent of the deceleration, the timing when to turn a blinker on, the timing when to start steering control, the extent of such steering control, and so forth.”, [0060], __Note: the underlined part of the mapping are examples of execution pattern state selected from among execution patterns__), grasp the execution pattern state selected from among the execution patterns ([0063], “the information collecting unit 30 obtains automated control information via the communication line 5 from the vehicle control device 4 loaded on the vehicle A. Such automated control information contains, for example, information about the particulars of the automated control that are to be executed next or that have been executed immediately before.”, [0108], “based on the automated control information forwarded from the automated-driving control unit 48”, __Note: the automated control information is forwarded from the automated driving unit which reads on grasping the selected execution pattern state, because it needs to be grasped before being forwarded); and notify a change of the execution pattern state when the execution pattern state changes while the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings is continued ([0018], “notifying occupants (e.g., a driver and his or her fellow occupant(s)) of information about automated control of a vehicle A of which at least part or the whole of driving operation is automatically controlled based on a property and/or a state of the occupant, before or after actually varying the behavior of the vehicle A under the automated control.”, __Note: whole of driving operation being performed automatically reads on automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor surrounding__), wherein the processor is configured to; Notify a schedule of the change of the execution pattern state in advance before notifying the change of the execution pattern state ([0018]-[0019], [0026], __Note: the disclosure of Ichioka , teaches notifying the driver/occupant if there is going to be a change of the automated driving behavior. Although the disclosure of Ichioka has an extra steps of checking if the behavioral variation is expected by the occupant according to the selected driving pattern and it is going to inform the occupant if the variation is not excepted, however, it still reads on the claimed limitation of notifying the change of the execution pattern state__); grasp a switching of the execution pattern state from congestion-limited control executed only for traveling in a traffic congestion section to area-limited control executed only for a specific area; and the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control are executed only in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings (Fig. 3, [0043]- [0051], [0069], “information about the running locations and scenes, as the automated control information”, [0070], [0087], Fig. 7, __Note: the reference disclosure teaches/suggests grasping a switching of the execution pattern state/driving behavior according to different scenes/locations which reads on recited execution control patten as congestion-limited control and area-limited control that as defined in the claims are, respectively, executed in automated driving only for a traffic congestion section and a specific area that are executed in automated driving. According to at least cited paragraphs of Ichioka and its Fig. 3, Ichioka teaches different control patterns being performed according to different locations and scenes that the vehicle has been located while the driving is in automated driving. Execution patterns in different scenarios like with speed cruising or in a traffic jam section which all can be executed in whole automated driving (non-monitoring obligation—level 3 or level 4 of autonomy) reads on congestion area control and area-limited control __), and notify the change of the execution pattern state when the congestion-limited control is switched to the area-limited control (at least Fig. 7, [0116], __Note: the present disclosure has an extra step of comparing the change with the stored behavioral patten according to driving property and if it is not same as predetermined behavior, it will notify the change, however it still teach/suggests the claimed limitation__),
Therefore, according to at least cited paragraphs, Ichioka explicitly teaches sending notification to the driver when the execution pattern state changes with regard to a location and scene (according to at least forgoing cited paragraphs and Fig. 3 of Ichioka). Although Ichioka doesn’t explicitly disclose that the execution pattern states are between area-limited control and congestion-limited controlled that are defines in the claim as being executed only in automated driving without driver’s obligation to monitor surrounding, however, Ichioka’s information provision system notifies the occupant of change in behavior of automated control of a vehicle of which at least part or the whole of driving operation is automatically controlled. Accordingly, a control states in a vehicle in which the whole of driving operation is automatically controlled reads of control state (or execution pattern states) that are executed only in the automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surroundings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notification system as taught by Ichioka, that discloses notifying an occupant/driver in advance of changing execution pattern states, with execution pattern states being executed only in the automated driving without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surroundings, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the driving experience while improving safety.
Regarding claim 5, Ichioka discloses the presentation control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to grasp an entry into the specific area by the automated driving under the congestion-limited control ([0019], [0021], [0060], [0063], “the information collecting unit 30 obtains automated control information via the communication line 5 from the vehicle control device 4 loaded on the vehicle A. Such automated control information contains, for example, information about the particulars of the automated control that are to be executed next or that have been executed immediately before.”, [0108], “based on the automated control information forwarded from the automated-driving control unit 48”, __Note: the automated control information (that is about the particulars of the automated control that are to be executed next by the vehicle control device according to at least [0021]), is forwarded from the automated driving unit which reads on grasping the selected execution pattern state, because it needs to be grasped before being forwarded), and the processor is configured to notify the change of the execution pattern state at a timing at which the congestion-limited control is ended after the entry into the specific area. ([0018], “The information provision system 1 [] notifying occupants (e.g., a driver and his or her fellow occupant(s)) of information about automated control of a vehicle A [], before or after actually varying the behavior of the vehicle A under the automated control.”, __varying the behavior of the vehicle is happened based on the different locations and scenes as is shown in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0043]- [0051] and [0069] as examples. Therefore, after entry to a specific area (e.g. shown in Fig. 3), the system notifies the occupant about change of behavior of the vehicle which meets the claimed limitation)
Regarding claim 25, Ichioka teaches the presentation control device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the area-limited control is executed only for the specific area and is a traveling plan in which the vehicle is caused to follow a preceding vehicle or is caused to perform constant speed cruising along an own lane ([0019], “such automated driving includes automated cruising”, __reads on area-limited control as recited in the claim), and the congestion-limited control is executed for traveling in the traffic congestion section and is an execution pattern in which the vehicle follows the preceding vehicle while ensuring an inter vehicle distance that is smaller than an inter vehicle distance in the area-limited control ([0049], “to a distance to the traffic-jammed place” Fig.3 , merging into or separating from traffic flow, [0065], “acquire information about traffic congestion and/or traffic control.”, [0063], [0066], “The braking control unit 43 controls the brakes of the vehicle A to cause the vehicle A to decelerate.”,[0069], [0112], “some external factor that could affect the deceleration exists when a vehicle ahead is cutting in the same lane, when a vehicle ahead is traveling slowly,”, [0113], “The automated-driving control unit 48 controls the braking by the braking control unit 43 based on the rate of deceleration computed or predetermined.”, __according to cited paragraphs one of the automated-driving control unit is braking control unit that can control braking according to the location (e.g. separating traffic) and also according to any vehicle ahead, this control state reads on congestion-limited control as recited in the claim__).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichioka, in view of Park et al., US 20190011914 A1, hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claim 6, Ichokia discloses The presentation control device according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1), wherein the processor is configured to grasp a switching of the execution pattern state from the area-limited control to the congestion-limited control (Fig. 3, [0043]- [0051], [0069], “information about the running locations and scenes, as the automated control information”, [0070], [0087], Fig. 7, __Note: the reference disclosure teaches/suggests grasping a switching of the execution pattern state/driving behavior according to different scenes/locations which reads on recited execution control patten as congestion-limited control and area-limited control that as defined in the claims are, respectively, executed in automated driving only for a traffic congestion section and a specific area that are executed in automated driving. According to at least cited paragraphs of Ichioka and its Fig. 3, Ichioka teaches different control patterns being performed according to different locations and scenes that the vehicle has been located while the driving is in automated driving. Execution patterns in different scenarios like with speed cruising or in a traffic jam section which all can be executed in whole automated driving (non-monitoring obligation—level 3 or level 4 of autonomy) reads on congestion area control and area-limited control __),
However, Ichokia doesn’t explicitly disclose the processor is configured to omit notification of the change of the execution pattern state when the area-limited control is switched to the congestion-limited control.
Nevertheless, Park teaches the processor is configured to omit notification of the change of the execution pattern state when the area-limited control is switched to the congestion-limited control ([0423], “stop the output of the notification sound or the turn-on of the lamp when the manual driving authority is transferred due to the driver being able to perform the manual driving (i.e., when the autonomous driving mode is switched to the manual driving mode)”, __ Although Park suggested stop the output of notification when the control is transferred to manual, however, the combination of Ichioka that teaches notifying the driver regarding a change in vehicle execution pattern with Park would be obvious to arrive at the claimed limitation__).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device with automated driving control (which notifies the vehicle’s occupant of a change in behavior of the vehicle reading on changing the execution pattern state), as taught by Ichokia to include omitting the notification when the execution pattern state is changed as taught by Park, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of avoiding delivering redundant information that can confuse or distract the driver.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba, US 20240034362 A1, hereinafter “Oba”, in view of Yoshida et al., US20220001874A1, hereinafter “Yoshida”, or in alternative rejection, claims 9, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba, in view of Oba’944, WO 2019097944 A1, hereinafter “Oba’944”).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Oba discloses A presentation control device for a vehicle having an automated driving function capable of performing automated driving without driver's obligation to monitor surroundings ([0007]-[0008], __Note: accordingly, an information processing device, method and program disclosed by the reference is related to the automated driving of the vehicle including automation level 3 and 4 (reads on without driver’s obligation to monitor surrounding), with respect to [0149]-[0156]__, e.g., [0151], “at the driving automation level 3, the driver can perform a secondary task such as a work and an action other than steering, for example, operation of a mobile terminal, a telephone conference, video viewing, a game, thinking, and conversation with other passengers.”), the presentation control device being configured to control presentation of information related to the automated driving (Abstract, [0008]), the presentation control device comprising: a processor configured to execute the automated driving function in an execution pattern state selected from among execution patterns in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings (at least [0170]-[0174], [0607], [0830]-[0834], [0741], [0843], __ executing different automated driving level between level 4 and level 3 with respect to a number of factors that determines ODD (operation design domain) based on a situation of road section, according to Oba (at least the cited paragraphs) meets the claimed feature, Examiner Note: automated level 3 and 4 reads on the execution pattern state without the driver’s obligation to monitor the surrounding (See paragraph 7 of present office action, and also see at least paragraphs [0149]-[0154] of Oba)); grasp the execution pattern state selected from among the execution patterns (__according to at least [0117], the vehicle state detection unit, detects the state of the vehicle which includes driving operation state. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, driving operation state reads on execution pattern state and the vehicle state detection unit reads on grasping the execution pattern. Also, regarding [149]- [0159], there are different driving operating state for the vehicle from e.g., Level 0 to Level 4 __, also see paragraphs [0607] and [0830]-[0834], Note: Oba discloses detecting of operation state (than can be level 3 or 4, i.e., the execution pattern recited in the claim), as disclosed by the cited paragraph of Oba, which meets the claims limitation.).
Examiner Note regarding the interpretation of congestion-limited control and area-limited control as recited in claims 9 and 16: __ according to the specification of the instant application, e.g., paragraphs [0025]-[0026], congestion-limited control is performed with the vehicle occupant such as driver being prompted to perform periphery monitoring and the area-limited control execution pattern only executed for a specific area and when there is no surrounding monitoring obligation for the driver. Based on that and according to the newly added limitation of “the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control are executed only in the automated driving without the driver's obligation to monitor the surroundings.” as recited in claims 9 and 16, congestion-limited control has been interpreted as level 3 autonomy (when the driver is in part not required to monitor surrounding) and area-limited control has been interpreted as level 4 of autonomy (that the driver is not obliged to monitor surrounding and can do a secondary task).
Oba doesn’t explicitly disclose notify to prompt the driver to monitor the surroundings when the execution pattern state of the automated driving is switched from one of the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control to the other while the automated driving without the driver’s obligation.
However, Yoshida teaches notify to prompt the driver to monitor the surroundings when the execution pattern state of the automated driving is switched from one of the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control to the other while the automated driving without the driver’s obligation (e.g., Abstract, “a request notification controller that notifies a hands-on request for prompting the driver of the vehicle to perform [] a surrounding confirmation request for prompting the driver to perform a surrounding confirmation operation to confirm a surrounding condition.”, [0023]-[0024], [0053], [0058]-[0059], [0067], [0080]-[0085], Fig. 12, [0117]-[0118], __Examiner Note: according to the reference, the controller notifies the driver to confirm the surrounding if there is a construction or traffic area ahead (i.e. when there is a change of control pattern from area-limited control to congestion limited-control) while driving in automated mode. Confirming the surrounding reads on recited feature of monitor the surrounding which meets the claim limitation__).
Therefore, Oba teaches changing the execution patterns which includes changing autonomy level from one of level 4 to level 3 according to the factors like road conditions, however, Oba doesn’t explicitly discloses notifying to prompt the driver to monitor surrounding while the automated driving without driver’s obligation continued (e.g. from level 4 to level 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notification system as taught by Oba with sending a notification for prompting the driver to perform a surrounding confirmation operation (i.e. monitor surrounding) to confirm a surrounding condition in traffic or construction areas while in automated driving as taught by Yoshida, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the efficiency and improving the safety of an automated driving.
Also, In an alternative rejection, Oba’944 teaches notify to prompt the driver to monitor the surroundings when the execution pattern state of the automated driving is switched from one of the area-limited control and the congestion-limited control to the other while the automated driving without the driver’s obligation ([0049], [0129], “a careful driving section Sd from automatic driving”, “the caution driving section Sd is a section where the vehicle can continue to drive automatically or by slowing down, etc., under the careful supervision of a driver who is ready to return to manual driving”, [0130]-[0131], __different section including section Sd are shown in different colors on the display screen__, [0147], “a state in which a new caution driving section Sd has appeared in the second section, and a flashing display is being displayed to warn the driver.”, [0158], [0175], __ Examiner Note: section Sd is a caution section where the vehicle can continue to drive automatically and when this section approaches, the driver is warned/notified by flashing display. Therefore, the driver is warned to pay attention and monitor surrounding__).
Therefore, in alternative rejection over Oba in view of Oba’944, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notification system as taught by Oba with sending a notification for prompting the driver to be cautious to the surrounding in some areas (like section Sd in Oba’944) while automated driving still continues as taught by Oba’944, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the efficiency and improving the safety of an automated driving.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba, in view of Yoshida (or in alternative rejection over Oba in view of Oba’944), further in view of Horiba et al., CN112238861A, hereinafter “Horiba”.
Regarding claim 10, Oba in view of prior arts relied upon discloses The presentation control device according to claim 9 (See rejection for claim 9), and Oba teaches the processor is configured to grasp whether the driver is monitoring surroundings ([0985], “the driver monitoring system (DMS) according to the embodiment performs monitoring of the driver using the following methods.”, __according to this paragraph, different methods of monitoring the driver have been disclosed which reads on the claim feature for example method 8, paragraph [0993], is tracking of the movement of the driver’s entire body skeleton in order to estimate the behavior of the driver which reads on monitoring the driver to grasp whether the driver is monitoring surroundings. __, [1000], “a 3D information acquisition technique […]recognize the state (for example, wakefulness, distraction, and pathological change) of a particular driver[…]characterize the posture, entire or part of body of the driver., [1001]-[1004], “acquisition of the 3D position of the driver's body part[…]the body skeleton and the position and orientation of the head.[…] evaluate the driver's behavior relative to the behavior assumed in known ODD” ).
However, Oba doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the presentation control device controls that a switching of the execution pattern state in the automated driving function is permitted even when the processor is configured to grasp that the driver is not monitoring the surroundings.
However, Horiba teaches wherein the presentation control device controls that a switching of the execution pattern state in the automated driving function is permitted even when processor is configured to grasp that the driver is not monitoring the surroundings ([0100], “the automatic driving control state is changed to the second control state, and automatic driving is performed without the driver's monitoring obligation.”, [0036], “the driver state detection camera 41a (see FIG. 1 ) can detect whether the driver is paying attention to the surroundings”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device with automated driving control (which notifies a vehicle driver of an enabled automated driving of the vehicle based on an operation design), as taught by Oba to include controlling a switching of the execution pattern state in the automated driving function even when the driver is not monitoring the surroundings as taught by Horiba, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the vehicle control system even when the driver is not conscious or attentive to the surrounding.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba, in view of Yoshida (or in alternative rejection over Oba in view of Oba’944), further in view of Oba’944.
Regarding claim 15, Oba in view of prior arts relied upon discloses the presentation control device according to claim 9 (See rejection for claim 9), however Oba doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to highlight a content of a notification for prompting the driver to monitor the surroundings in a case where the vehicle leaves the specific area while continuing the automated driving by the congestion-limited control.
Nevertheless, Oba’944 teaches wherein the processor is configured to highlight a content of a notification for prompting the driver to monitor the surroundings in a case where the vehicle leaves the specific area while continuing the automated driving by the congestion-limited control ([0038], [0044]-[0045], [0049], [0111], [0114], [0129], “a careful driving section Sd from automatic driving” “In addition, the caution driving section Sd is a section where the vehicle can continue to drive automatically or by slowing down”, [0134], [0147], “a new caution driving section Sd has appeared in the second section, and a flashing display is being displayed to warn the driver.”, __Examiner Note: In Oba’944 disclosure, careful driving section from automatic driving (where the driver needs to be ready and monitor the surrounding), reads on congestion-limited control)”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing device with automated driving control (which notifies a vehicle driver of an enabled automated driving of the vehicle based on an operation design), as taught by Oba to include highlighting the notification of prompting the driver to monitor surrounding as taught by Oba’944, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of ensuring the driver’s awareness of the notification to monitor the surrounding in order to improve the safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 11 and 14 would also be allowable but for the indefiniteness rejections set forth above and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-13, dependent from claim 11, would also be allowable if the indefiniteness rejections are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teach the specific limitations of:
“notify the entry into the specific area during a duration of the congestion-limited control in a case where the automated driving by the congestion-limited control is continued after the entry into the specific area”, stated in claim 4.
“set a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the area-limited control to the congestion-limited control to be higher than a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the congestion-limited control to the area-limited control”, stated in claim 11.
set a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the congestion-limited control to the area-limited control to be higher than a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the area-limited control to the congestion-limited control, stated in claim 14.
None of the prior arts relied upon teaches the aforementioned limitations of claims 4 and 11, with respect to the definition of “area-limited control” and “congestion-limited control” as being executed in the automated driving.
With respect to claim 4, Ichioka fails to teach/suggest the aforementioned feature of claim 4. Oba’499 teaches sending notification when the automated driving is going to section Sd (which is caution driving section - that the vehicle continues automated driving under driver’s attention to the surrounding or under vehicle slowing down- which reads on congestion-limited area), while the automated driving is still continues. however, Oba’499 fails to disclose notifying the entry into the specific area during a duration of the congestion-control in a case where the automated driving by the congestion-limited control is continued after entry into the specific area. No other prior arts found to teach this limitation.
With respect to claim 11 and 14, Oba teaches that information is presented to the driver in accordance with the degree of importance of handover to prompt the driver, however, Oba doesn’t teach setting a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the area-limited control to the congestion-limited control to be higher than a degree of emphasis on a notification in a scene in which the execution pattern state is switched from the congestion-limited control to the area-limited control. None of the prior arts of record and no new art found to teach the aforementioned feature of claims 11 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3669 /NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669