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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 08/01/2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccamonte et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133280) in view of Young et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,749,116 B1).
Regarding claim 13 and similarly with respect to claim 1
Seccamonte discloses “A system comprising: one or more processors;” (See Seccamonte Fig. 3, Char. 304 disclosing a system with a processor.).
Seccamonte discloses “and memory containing executable instructions, the executable instructions being executable by the one or more processors to determine a comfort level of a user based on a reaction of the user to a road situation associated with road traffic;” (See Seccamonte [0155] disclosing a planning module receiving information representative of passenger data from vehicle sensors. The information representing a comfort level a passenger is experiencing.).
Seccamonte discloses “provide a notification to a vehicle, the notification including information associated with the zone, in response to a result of a comparison of the zone and a trajectory of the vehicle;” (See Seccamonte [0032] disclosing the control module for the vehicle is communicatively coupled to the planning module and configured to receive an adjusted multi-dimensional envelope from the planning module, and Seccamonte [0171] disclosing matching the envelope with a centerline trajectory.).
Seccamonte discloses “and control the vehicle to drive based on the notification.” (See Seccamonte [0157] disclosing the control module receives data representing the multi-dimensional envelope and a present AV position, and operates the AV controls to cause the AV to travel along the multi-dimensional envelope.).
Seccamonte discloses all the limitations of claim 13 except “define a zone of the user based on the comfort level and a user location of the user, the zone including the location of the user,”, & “wherein a size of the zone is inversely correlated to the comfort level;”.
Young discloses “define a zone of the user based on the comfort level and a user location of the user, the zone including the location of the user,” (See Young Col. 11, L. 25-67 & Col. 12 L. 1-12 disclosing defining a virtual zone surrounding a vehicle based on a drivers familiarity (comfort) with a traffic situation and a location of the vehicle where the driver is located.).
Young discloses “wherein a size of the zone is inversely correlated to the comfort level;” (See Young Col. 10, L. 26-32 disclosing if a level of a driver's familiarity on a vehicle's dimensions and capabilities is at a “high” level, a parking assistance platform may decrease the size of a virtual zone surrounding the vehicle, thus the size of the zone is inversely correlated to a comfort level (familiarity level) of the driver.).
Seccamonte and Young are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of Young to include adapting the size of a virtual boundary, the boundary determined in consideration of the location of the vehicle, surrounding a vehicle inverse to the drivers comfort with performing a maneuver. Doing so provides a known method in the art for adapting safety mechanisms for a vehicle in accordance with a driver, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously mitigates sending unnecessary notifications to experienced drivers and increases the likelihood of appropriately notifying novice drivers, see Young Col. 10, L. 36-40.
Regarding claim 3
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the comfort level is determined based on a cumulative score that is computed based on the reaction of the user.” (See Seccamonte [0163] disclosing the data corresponding to a comfort level of the vehicle passenger may include an aggregate of sensor data regarding the reaction of the passenger, i.e increase the level of passenger comfort, e.g., such that the passenger's heart rate reduces, pitch of voice reduces, pupil activity reduces, or pressure on arm rest reduces. Further see Seccamonte [0181] disclosing sensor fusion to combine the data corresponding to passenger data from the sensors.).
Regarding claim 6 and similarly with respect to claim 16
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the information includes a distance of the vehicle from the zone.” (See Seccamonte [0149] disclosing a perception module identifies one or more objects or pedestrians located within a threshold distance to the trajectory of the vehicle. Also see Seccamonte [0032] disclosing the planning module, configured to generate the trajectory communicated to the vehicle, is communicatively coupled to the perception module.).
Regarding claim 10 and similarly with respect to claim 20
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: maneuvering the vehicle to keep the vehicle out of the zone.” (See Seccamonte See Seccamonte [0114] disclosing braking to cause the AV to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles.).
Regarding claim 11
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 10, wherein the vehicle is maneuvered to slow down while approaching the zone.” (See Seccamonte [0124] disclosing an example of a segment including pedestrians or un-expected traffic, where speed constraints may limit the AV to a travel speed slower than an expected speed.).
Regarding claim 12
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 10, wherein the vehicle is maneuvered to stop.” (See Seccamonte [0114] disclosing braking to cause the AV to pause and wait for passing pedestrians or vehicles.).
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccamonte et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133280) in view of Young et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,749,116 B1) in further view of Omari et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0406906).
Regarding claim 2
Seccamonte in view of Young discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the comfort level of the user is determined based on a machine learning model generated based on a prior observation of the reaction of the user at the location.” (See Seccamonte [0166] disclosing a machine learning model determines the particular lateral clearance between the multi-dimensional envelope and one or more objects based on features extracted from the sensor data, though not a comfort level.).
Omari discloses “wherein the comfort level of the user is determined based on a machine learning model generated based on a prior observation of the reaction of the user at the location.” (See Omari Abstract disclosing training a model for determining a comfort level of a passenger using records of performed vehicle actions including, environment data, operational data, and a perceived passenger comfort level for the performed vehicle action. Models may be generated corresponding to the vehicle location as input data, see Omari [0027]-[0028]. The model is trained using a machine learning procedure, see [0029].).
Seccamonte, Young, and Omari are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of Omari to include a machine learning model for determining a comfort level of a user in the environment of a vehicle. Doing so provides a known method in the art for automatically adjusting a vehicle in an environment with users, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously determines a passenger's vehicle action intensity preferences based on actual evaluations submitted by the passenger or passengers with one or more commonalities to the passenger, see Omari [0032].
Regarding claim 4 and similarly with respect to claim 14
Seccamonte in view of Young discloses “The method of claim 1,”and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising: determining whether the comfort level is higher than a threshold value;”, & “and allowing the vehicle to enter the zone in response to determining that the comfort level is higher than the threshold value.”.
Omari discloses “further comprising: determining whether the comfort level is higher than a threshold value;” (See Omari [0056] disclosing a threshold comfort level for selecting a vehicle action.).
Omari discloses “and allowing the vehicle to enter the zone in response to determining that the comfort level is higher than the threshold value.” (See Omari [0056] disclosing as a predicted comfort level is determined for each proposed vehicle action, it may be compared to a threshold comfort level, and if a predicted comfort level exceeds a threshold level, it may be automatically accepted without considering other proposed vehicle actions. The action, for example, may include crossing a stopping line depending upon the traffic situation, see Omari [0047].).
Seccamonte, Young, and Omari are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of Omari to include determining a comfort level threshold of a user for a vehicle to autonomously execute actions in the environment of the user. Doing so provides a known method in the art for automatically adjusting a vehicle in an environment with users, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously determines a passenger's vehicle action intensity preferences based on actual evaluations submitted by the passenger or passengers with one or more commonalities to the passenger, see Omari [0032], and may improve processing time, allowing the system to function more quickly and efficiently see Omari [0056].
Regarding claim 7 and similarly with respect to claim 17
Seccamonte in view of Young discloses “The method of claim 1,”and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the notification to the vehicle is provided prior to the vehicle entering the zone.”.
Omari discloses “wherein the notification to the vehicle is provided prior to the vehicle entering the zone.” (See Omari [0062] disclosing a proposed vehicle action may be for the vehicle to honk, alerting the operator of a bicycle to the presence of the vehicle, before the vehicle passes the bicycle.).
Seccamonte, Young, and Omari are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of Omari to include notifying a user of a vehicle entering the surrounding environment of the user. Doing so provides a known method in the art for automatically adjusting a vehicle in an environment with users, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously improves the safe operation of the vehicle in an environment with users while considering user comfort and generating relevant alerts, see Omari [0067].
Regarding claim 8 and similarly with respect to claim 18
Seccamonte in view of Young discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising: modifying the notification to the vehicle based on a historical driving behavior of the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle.”.
Omari discloses “further comprising: modifying the notification to the vehicle based on a historical driving behavior of the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle.” (See Omari [0051] disclosing the vehicle control system may receive a vehicle response request comprising context information for a vehicle action, such as whether a prevailing time-sensitive or critical condition exists, including a short history of the environment of the vehicle, such as past positions and movements of the vehicle or objects in the environment of the vehicle.).
Seccamonte, Young, and Omari are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of Omari to include generating a notification for user of a vehicle entering the surrounding environment of the user based on a historical driving behavior of the vehicle. Doing so provides a known method in the art for automatically adjusting a vehicle in an environment with users, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously improves the safe operation of the vehicle in an environment with users while considering user comfort and generating relevant alerts, see Omari [0067].
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seccamonte et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0133280) in view of Young et. al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,749,116 B1) in further view of May (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0147260).
Regarding claim 5 and similarly with respect to claim 15
Seccamonte discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a probability of the vehicle entering the zone based on the trajectory of the vehicle, the location of the user, and the zone;” (See Seccamonte [0174] disclosing the planning module adjusts the width of the multi-dimensional envelope by considering probabilistic predictions of future positions of other vehicles).
Seccamonte discloses all the elements of claim 5 except “and providing a notification of the vehicle approaching the zone to the user in response to the probability is higher than a threshold value.”
May discloses “and providing a notification of the vehicle approaching the zone to the user in response to the probability is higher than a threshold value.” (See May [0009] & [0055] disclosing identifying a potential hazard on the basis of evaluating a probability associated with the risk . Alerts, such as a speeder approaching from the rear of the user, are provided to a user as notifications, see May [0071].).
Seccamonte, Young, and May are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of May to include sending a notification to a user to alert the user of information of a hazard approaching them determined based on a threshold probability. Doing so provides a known method in the art for alerting users in an environment of hazards, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously notifies users of objects in the vicinity, see May [0008].
Regarding claim 9 and similarly with respect to claim 19
Seccamonte in view of Young discloses “The method of claim 1,” and further discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except “further comprising: providing, to the user, a notification including information associated with the vehicle approaching the zone, in response to a determination of a condition requiring caution identified based on a historical driving behavior of the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle.”
May discloses “further comprising: providing, to the user, a notification including information associated with the vehicle approaching the zone, in response to a determination of a condition requiring caution identified based on a historical driving behavior of the vehicle or a driver of the vehicle.” (See May [0068] disclosing identifying a specific object type with associated predictive historic traits/trends including statistical movement choices in space as well as known acceleration and speed ability of identified object, to present to a user to route around a potential hazard. Alerts, such as a speeder approaching from the rear of the user, are provided to a user as notifications, see May [0071].).
Seccamonte, Young, and May are analogous art, because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle controls. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Seccamonte to incorporate the teachings of May to include sending a notification to a user to alert the user of information of a hazard approaching them determined in combination with historical data. Doing so provides a known method in the art for alerting users in an environment of hazards, incorporated with a reasonable expectation of success, as doing so advantageously notifies users of objects in the vicinity, see May [0008].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656