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
The amendment filed November 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain
pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claim 16 has overcome 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non‐Final Office Action mailed August 20, 2025. However, upon reviewing the amended contents, new 112(b) rejections are made for the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
[1] Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§101
Claims 1-9 and 11-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Office Action at 2.
The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
The Examiner asserts the following:
A method of operating a device, comprising:
receiving an assumption associated a vehicle feature that defines (i) at least one response by an attentive driver to at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus, (ii) timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action, or
(iii) a combination thereof [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
monitoring behavior of one or more attentive drivers [mental process/step];
calculating a confidence level associated with the assumption being valid based on the
monitoring [mathematical concept]; and
performing one or more actions based on the confidence level [mere post-solution activity].
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because receiving an assumption associated a vehicle feature is pre-solution activity (data gathering) and performing actions is a mere post-solution activity that could be attached to the confidence calculation process.
There is no practical application as only a confidence level is calculated. (e.g., see Page 4 of the Office Action, Emphasis is the Examiner's)
By the present Amendment, independent claim 1 is amended to recite "performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored based on the confidence level" (Emphasis is Amendment), with independent claims 13, 27, and 29 being similarly amended.
Hence, the "practical application" is obtaining the confidential level and then using that confidence level to "to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored" (e.g., as explained at [0126]-[0129], incorrect attentive driver assumptions may cause developers to deploy software with incorrect or unrealistic vehicle safety margins, which can create safety hazards to other drivers, e.g., across a fleet of vehicles that adopt the software).
In view of the above-remarks, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw these rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained below in the 112(b) rejections made for the amended claim set, for purposes of examination, the limitation, “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is interpreted as “to assist the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 differentiates “one or more drivers” from “the one or more attentive drivers”, are not persuasive.
In this office action, rejections under 35 U.S.C.§101 are maintained for claims 1-9, 11-30.
[2] Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§102 and 35 U.S.C.§103 over Huang, etc.
The Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Huang is generally directed to assessing whether a specific driver is attentive or not (i.e., user situation awareness level) and then taking some action to assist that specific driver if the user situation awareness level is low, e.g.:
[0028] The user situation awareness level may be determined based on different parameters
related to the user ...
[0082] The method 300 further includes determining (330) a user situation awareness level based on the information related to the detected event outside the vehicle and the
information related to the reaction of the user to the detected event.
[0083] The method 300 further includes generating (340) a control signal configured to control a user situation awareness modification module based on the determined user
situation awareness level.
[0114] ... The processing module 504 may be configured to trigger the user situation awareness modification by the user situation awareness module if the current user situation awareness level is lower than the currently necessary situation awareness level, for example. The processing module 504 may be configured to generate the control signal to control the user situation awareness modification module to trigger a modification of the current user situation awareness level to the currently necessary situation awareness level
(e.g., see [0028], [0082]-[0083], [0114] of Huang, Emphasis added)
By contrast, at a high-level, independent claim 1 is not directed to assessing whether or not specific drivers are attentive or not, but rather evaluating confidence in assumption(s) of how drivers that are known to be attentive actually perform. Note that the "assumption" is associated with "an attentive driver" and behavior is monitored for "one or more attentive drivers", so the "confidence level" relates to how those attentive drivers operate, not whether those drivers are attentive or not. For example, as explained at [0126]-[0129], incorrect attentive driver assumptions may cause developers to deploy software with incorrect or unrealistic vehicle safety margins, which can create safety hazards to other drivers (e.g., across a fleet of vehicles that adopt the software). To put another way, Huang is trying to monitor behavior of a driver to assist that specific driver if his/her attention level is deemed low, whereas the claimed "assumption" is evaluated with respect to known attentive driver(s) to improve systems so as to help other driver(s).
By the present Amendment, independent claim 1 is amended to recite "performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored based on the confidence level" (Emphasis is Amendment), in contrast to Huang's system for evaluating driver-specific awareness of a particular driver so as to improve the safety outcome for that particular driver. Independent claims 13, 27, and 29 are similarly amended.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained below in the 112(b) rejections made for the amended claims, for purposes of examination, the limitation, “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is interpreted as “to assist the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 differentiates “one or more drivers” from “the one or more attentive drivers”, are not persuasive.
Further, Applicant argued: By contrast, at a high-level, independent claim 1 is not directed to assessing whether or not specific drivers are attentive or not, but rather evaluating confidence in assumption(s) of how drivers that are known to be attentive actually perform. Note that the "assumption" is associated with "an attentive driver" and behavior is monitored for "one or more attentive drivers", so the "confidence level" relates to how those attentive drivers operate, not whether those drivers are attentive or not.
Applicant’s argued that the assumption, behavior monitoring and the confidence level are related to how those attentive drivers operate, not whether those drivers are attentive or not. It seems that Applicant argued that “those drivers” mean “one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers”.
As explained below in the 112(b) rejections, the meaning of “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is unclear and for purposes of examination, the limitation, “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is interpreted as “to assist the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored”.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 differentiates “one or more drivers” from “the one or more attentive drivers”, are not persuasive.
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 1-30 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.
In claim 1, lines 9, 10, the meaning of the limitation, “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is unclear.
Applicant listed paragraphs [0126]-[0129] as support for the amendments, and argued: practical application" is obtaining the confidential level and then using that confidence level to "to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored.
Upon reviewing the original disclosure, paragraphs [0126]-[0129] do not disclose drivers other than the attentive drivers.
Paragraph [0129] discloses: aspects of the disclosure are directed towards assumption verification (e.g., at the driver level, the fleet level, pre-deployment, post-deployment, etc.), whereby a confidence level associated with an assumption being valid is determined based on behavior monitoring of attentive driver(s).
Paragraph [0154] discloses: In this case, at 802, an assumption is that an engaged hands-off driver can be expected to take over when host vehicle drifts off the lane near construction zones.
Paragraph [0156] discloses: For pre-deployment sequence of operation, at 804, the assumption of 802 is assumed to be true at pre-deployment stage. At 806, behavior of interventions by other drivers is monitored. At 808, a confidence in the assumption is determined to be 80% based on the behavior monitoring at 806. At 810, based on the confidence from 808, the vehicle feature enables hands off mode as long as the confidence is above a threshold.
Paragraph [0157] discloses: For post-deployment sequence of operation, at 812, the assumption of 802 is assumed to be true at post-deployment stage. At 814, behavior of future interventions by other drivers in similar scenarios is tracked. At 808, a confidence in the assumption is determined to be 80% based on the behavior monitoring at 814. At 810, based on the confidence from 808, the vehicle feature enables hands off mode as long as the confidence is above a threshold.
Paragraphs [0129], [0154], [0156], [0157] provide that all drivers are considered attentive drivers. [0156] and [0157] provide that the behavior of the other drivers are monitored and the confidence is determined based on the monitoring.
While the amended claim 1 provides “monitoring behavior of one or more attentive drivers” and “ to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored”, the disclosure of the application provides that one or more drivers other than the one or more attentive drivers described in the amended claims are also attentive drivers and monitoring behavior and determining confidence are also performed for the one or more drivers other than the one or more attentive drivers.
For purposes of examination, the limitation, “to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored” is interpreted as “to assist the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored”.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 13 and 27.
Claims 2-12, 14-26 and 28-30 are also rejected under section 112(b) for depending from rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to method of operating a device (i.e., a method). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below with the category of abstract idea bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method of operating a device, comprising:
receiving an assumption associated with a vehicle feature that defines (i) at least one response by an attentive driver to at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus, (ii) timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action, or (iii) a combination thereof;
monitoring behavior of one or more attentive drivers [mental process/step];
calculating a confidence level associated with the assumption being valid based on the monitoring [mathematical concept]; and
performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored based on the confidence level.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The monitoring and calculating processes are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. This invention relates to monitoring driver attentive behavior and calculating confidence level for the received assumption associated a vehicle feature (Mental Process). There is no control of the vehicle being carried out, only calculating confidence for a driver’s attentiveness to in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus. The calculating process can be performed mentally or in a computer.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method of operating a device, comprising:
receiving an assumption associated with a vehicle feature that defines (i) at least one response by an attentive driver to at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus, (ii) timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action, or (iii) a combination thereof [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
monitoring behavior of one or more attentive drivers [mental process/step];
calculating a confidence level associated with the assumption being valid based on the monitoring [mathematical concept]; and
performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored based on the confidence level [mere post-solution activity].
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because receiving an assumption associated a vehicle feature is pre-solution activity (data gathering) and performing actions is a mere post-solution activity that could be attached to the confidence calculation process. There is no practical application as only a confidence level is calculated.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 13, 27 and 29.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-12, 14-26, 28 and 30 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere extra-solution activities, such as, Bayesian confidence level, driver response, vehicle status, driver movement, driver action timing pattern, pre and post deployment phase, a safety feature or a user experience feature, driver profile, the assumption evaluation schedule, updating the assumption, modifying the vehicle feature, drive response that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20180099679 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses:
A method of operating a device, comprising: receiving an assumption associated with a vehicle feature that defines (i) at least one response by an attentive driver to at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus {paragraph [0006] discloses operating device with an assumption associated a vehicle feature that defines response by an attentive driver: an apparatus for controlling a user situation awareness… receive a user detection signal comprising information related to a reaction or a missing reaction of a user to the detected event. to determine a user situation awareness level based on the information related to the detected event and the information related to the reaction of the user to the detected event. An assumption associated a vehicle feature is implied since the awareness level is based on user reaction for the event. That is, the awareness level determination requires the assumption that a certain user reaction is expected for the information of a given event. [0096] discloses in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus},
(ii) timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action {[0029] discloses timing information of driver action: the situation awareness parameter information may be gaze time, a time of change of a pulse rate of the user}, or
(iii) a combination thereof {[0006], [0096], [0029]};
monitoring behavior of one or more attentive drivers {[0089]: monitoring behavior such as the pursuit of the driver's eyes following objects};
calculating a confidence level associated with the assumption being valid based on the monitoring {[0006]: a processing module configured to determine a user situation awareness level, construed the confidence level}; and
performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers for which the behavior is monitored based on the confidence level {[0006]: to generate a control signal configured to control a user situation awareness modification module}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 27.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Huang discloses: wherein the confidence level is greater than 0% and less than 100% {[0006]. Examiner note that the range from 0% to 100% is according to the definition of the percentage, and the confidence level must be in the range}.
Regarding claim 4, which depend from claim 1, Huang discloses: wherein the assumption defines the at least one response by the attentive driver to the at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus {[0067] discloses attentive driver response to an alert}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 28.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, Huang discloses: wherein the at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus comprises: a status indicator associated with a battery charging status, a fuel level, a vehicle temperature, or any combination thereof, or an alert message, or any combination thereof {[0067]: alert the driver in the take - over request}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 4, Huang discloses: wherein the at least one response comprises, within a threshold period of time subsequent to the stimulus: a gaze direction of the attentive driver, or hand movement or gesture of the attentive driver, or a combination thereof {[0089]: gaze directions}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Huang discloses: wherein the assumption defines the timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action {[0029], [0067]: the time-till-takeover}, and wherein the timing information comprises a timing pattern associated with the attentive driver engaging or disengaging the vehicle feature {[0043] discloses timing pattern: a slower user reaction time… a faster user reaction time}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 1, Huang discloses: wherein the vehicle feature comprises a safety feature or a user experience feature {[0026]: vehicle safety may be improved}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 1, Huang discloses: wherein the confidence level is below a threshold, and wherein the one or more actions comprise: transmitting an indication of the confidence level being below the threshold to a developer of the vehicle feature, or performing one or more mitigative operations associated with the vehicle feature in response to the confidence level being below the threshold, or continuing to track the confidence level to determine if the confidence level increases to above the threshold, or any combination thereof {[0122] discloses mitigative operations}.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Marti et al. (US 20210300384 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 1, Huang does not disclose: wherein the one or more attentive drivers comprise one or more test drivers associated with a fleet of test vehicles in a pre-deployment phase of the vehicle feature, or wherein the one or more attentive drivers comprise one or more consumer drivers in a post-deployment phase of the vehicle feature.
Marti teaches characteristic that identifies the driver, indicating a post-deployment phase, and a group to which the driver 104 belongs (e.g., Uber drivers), indicating a pre-deployment phase in paragraph [0033]. For definition of the pre and post deployment phase, please refer to paragraph [0132] of the speciation of this application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the individual driver or fleet drivers classification feature of Marti with the described invention of Huang in order to classify attentive driver characteristic.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Marti teaches: wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a default attentive driver profile, or wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a particular class or category of driver, or wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a particular driver {[0033]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the individual driver or fleet drivers classification feature of Marti with the described invention of Huang in order to classify attentive driver characteristic.
Claim(s) 12, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 20170261984 A1).
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 1, Huang does not disclose: further comprising: receiving an assumption evaluation schedule associated with the vehicle feature, wherein the monitoring, the calculating the performing are executed in accordance with the assumption evaluation schedule.
Ichikawa teaches assumption evaluation schedule in paragraph [0025]: traveling plan (schedule) is generated on… the reliability of the driver state management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the evaluation schedule feature of Ichikawa with the described invention of Huang in order to execute assumption evaluation in timely manner.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 12, Huang discloses: further comprising: determining that the confidence level is below a threshold; and updating the assumption associated with the vehicle feature based on the confidence level {[0122]}.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 14, Huang discloses: further comprising: modifying the vehicle feature based on the updated assumption associated with the vehicle feature {[0068]: The apparatus 100 may improve the driver assistance system by setting its parameters (e.g. an expected driver's reaction time) depending on the current situation awareness of the driver}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 14, Huang discloses: further comprising: transmitting the updated assumption associated with the vehicle feature; and receiving, in response to the transmission of the updated assumption, an updated confidence level associated with the updated assumption being valid {[0122]}.
Claim(s) 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 13, Marti discloses:
A method of operating a network component {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0061] disclose a network between a driver sensing subsystem 140 and a vehicle observation subsystem 150, which belong to a vehicle, and a compute instance 110. [0015] discloses that any component of the system can be implemented in cloud computing environment. [0044] discloses that the skill level classification subsystem 170, which belongs to the compute instance 110, may reside and execute in the cloud}, comprising:
transmitting an assumption {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068] disclose transmitting assumption: driver state data 132 and vehicle state data 134 are transmitted}; and
receiving, in response to the transmission, a confidence level {Fig. 1 and [0053] disclose that a driver monitoring system API 192 receives a confidence level}.
Marti does not explicitly disclose:
[1] The assumption is associated with a vehicle feature that defines (i) at least one response by an attentive driver to at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus, (ii) timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action, or (iii) a combination thereof.
[2] The confidence level associated with the assumption being valid that is based upon behavior monitoring of one or more attentive drivers.
[3] performing one or more actions to assist one or more drivers that use the vehicle feature other than the one or more attentive drivers associated with the behavior monitoring based on the confidence level.
[1] Huang teaches this limitation in paragraphs [0006], [0096], [0029].
[2] Huang teaches this limitation in paragraph [0006].
[3] Huang teaches this limitation in paragraph [0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assumption associated with vehicle feature and valid assumption feature and actions feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to evaluate the confidence level based upon the assumed driver response.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 29.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from 13, Marti discloses: wherein the confidence level is greater than 0% and less than 100% {[0053]. Examiner note that the range from 0% to 100% is according to the definition of the percentage, and the confidence level must be in the range}.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 13, Huang teaches: wherein the assumption defines the at least one response by the attentive driver to the at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus {[0006], [0096], [0029], [0067]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the assumption associated with vehicle feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to evaluate the confidence level based upon the assumed driver response.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 30.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 19, Huang teaches: wherein the at least one in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus comprises: a status indicator associated with a battery charging status, a fuel level, a vehicle temperature, or any combination thereof, or an alert message, or any combination thereof {[0067]: alert the driver in the take - over request}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alert feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to provide an instance for in-vehicle human-machine communications interface stimulus.
Regarding claim 21, which depends from claim 19, Huang teaches: wherein the at least one response comprises, within a threshold period of time subsequent to the stimulus: a gaze direction of the attentive driver, or hand movement or gesture of the attentive driver, or a combination thereof {[0089]: gaze directions}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the gaze direction feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to provide an instance for driver response.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 13, Huang teaches: wherein the assumption defines the timing information associated with at least one in-vehicle driver action, and wherein the timing information comprises a timing pattern associated with the attentive driver engaging or disengaging the vehicle feature {[0029], [0067], [0043]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the timing feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to consider timing in the assumption.
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 13, Marti discloses: wherein the one or more attentive drivers comprise one or more test drivers associated with a fleet of test vehicles in a pre-deployment phase of the vehicle feature, or wherein the one or more attentive drivers comprise one or more consumer drivers in a post-deployment phase of the vehicle feature {[0033]].
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 13, Huang teaches: wherein the vehicle feature comprises a safety feature or a user experience feature {[0026]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the safety feature of Huang with the described invention of Marti in order to consider safety feature in the assumption.
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 13, Marti discloses: wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a default attentive driver profile, or wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a particular class or category of driver, or wherein the attentive driver associated with the assumption is associated with a particular driver {[0033]}.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in view of Huang and in further view of Ichikawa.
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 13, Ichikawa teaches: further comprising: transmitting an assumption evaluation schedule associated with the vehicle feature, wherein the confidence level is received in accordance with the assumption evaluation schedule {[0025]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the evaluation schedule feature of Ichikawa with the described invention of modified Marti in order to execute assumption evaluation in timely manner.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Ferguson et al. (US8948954B1).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Huang does not disclose: wherein the confidence level comprises a Bayesian confidence level.
Ferguson teaches a Bayesian algorithm in col. 5, lines 35-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Bayesian algorithm feature of Ferguson with the described invention of Huang in order to facilitate update of the confidence level.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marti in view of Huang and in further view of Ferguson.
Regarding claim 18, which depends from claim 13, Ferguson teaches: wherein the confidence level comprises a Bayesian confidence level {col. 5, lines 35-43}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Bayesian algorithm feature of Ferguson with the described invention of modified Marti in order to facilitate update of the confidence level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hubbard et al. (US 20190126752 A1) discloses monitoring the alertness of a person that is located in a driving position of an autonomous vehicle.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661