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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 13, 15-17, and 21-24 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claim(s) 3, 5-7, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bukman.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe of US 20100030434 A1, filed 11/05/2007, hereinafter “Okabe”, in view of Bukman of US 20050128092 A1, filed 11/24/2004, hereinafter “Bukman”.
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches:
A method performed by a control system for cruise control, the method comprising: determining a driving mode of a driving vehicle; (See at least [0089]: “The engine ECU 503 determines target torque and then an engine control level by referring to an acceleration map based on the accelerator level, and also controls the transmission by referring to a shift map to achieve target acceleration. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the engine ECU 503 determines the engine control level and controls the gear shifter to make the acceleration and speed of the vehicle 3 lower than normal.”)
in response to determining the driving mode of the driving vehicle being a smart cruise control mode, determining a headway level of a driver, the headway level including a first headway level corresponding to a first time period during which a driver’s head is out of a predetermined position, and (See at least Fig. 7(b), [0077]: “…For example, if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small, the driver condition estimating unit 50a determines that the driver is irritated…”, [0091-0092]: “The ACC unit 505 causes the vehicle 3 to follow a vehicle ahead at a distance selected, for example, from three levels. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the ACC unit 505 sets the distance at the highest one of the three levels or at an even higher level…If the LKA unit 504 and the ACC unit 505 are turned off by the driver, the control variable changing unit 50b turns on the units after reporting and then starts the safety control” & [0097]: “During driving, it can be assumed that the driver is not irritated or the level of irritation is low if the driver allows a vehicle to get into a position in front of the vehicle 3, keeps driving in the same driving lane, keeps a fairly large distance from a vehicle ahead, or abides by stop signs…”)
determining whether a driver of the driving vehicle is careless… (See at least [0077]: “The driver condition estimating unit 50a detects behavior indicating irritation of the driver while the driver is driving. For example, if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small, the driver condition estimating unit 50a determines that the driver is irritated…”)
…controlling the driving vehicle to adjust a distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle based on a degree of driver’s carelessness… (See at least [0091]: “The ACC unit 505 causes the vehicle 3 to follow a vehicle ahead at a distance selected, for example, from three levels. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the ACC unit 505 sets the distance at the highest one of the three levels or at an even higher level…”)
Although Okabe does not explicitly teach a second headway level corresponding to a second time period during which the driver’s head is out of the predetermined position that is longer than the first time period, Okabe does teach detecting behavior indicating irritation of the driver “while the driver is driving”, an example of which is maintaining a “small” inter-vehicle distance (i.e., headway level), meaning that the inter-vehicle distance can change over time (See at least [0051-0052] & [0076-0077] of Okabe). Okabe additionally teaches that “as the number of detected behavioral events increases, the level of irritation of the driver increases”, meaning that behavior indicating irritation of the driver occurs more than once (See at least [0076-0077] & [0079] of Okabe). Therefore, the teachings of Okabe render obvious different and additional headway levels, and, thus, time periods, in which the driver exceeds the “safe distance” to the vehicle ahead (See [0157] of Okabe), which provides the benefit of “mak[ing] it possible to ensure the safety even when the driver is irritated” (See [0091] of Okabe).
Additionally, Okabe does not explicitly teach:
…wherein the determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless includes calculating a steering wheel contact time of the driving vehicle,
the steering wheel contact time includes a first steering wheel contact time and a second steering wheel contact time, the second steering wheel contact time is shorter than the first steering wheel contact time; and
…wherein the degree of the driver’s carelessness is determined according to the determined headway level and the calculated steering wheel contact time.
Bukman teaches:
wherein the determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless includes calculating a steering wheel contact time of the driving vehicle, (See at least [000037-0038]: “Inattentiveness by the driver is identified by running a computer program 122 in the control device 120, using a method according to the invention and described in the following text, by evaluating the steering wheel angle x as a preferred indicator…FIG. 2 shows a typical profile of the steering wheel angle, such as occurs when inattentiveness by the driver has been identified with the aid of the present invention. In this profile, first of all, the driver has a steering quiescent phase LR in which he makes no significant changes. Thus, in FIG. 2, the steering angle x remains in the deflection range Ax, which is bounded by the two parallel horizontal lines, throughout the steering quiescent phase LR. The occurrence of inattentiveness in the sense of the invention is then characterized by a very sharp or powerfiil steering action which follows this steering quiescent phase. This powerful steering action LA is represented in FIG. 2 by the rapid rise in the steering angle x at the end of the quiescent phase”)
the steering wheel contact time includes a first steering wheel contact time and a second steering wheel contact time, the second steering wheel contact time is shorter than the first steering wheel contact time; and (See at least Fig. 2, which shows steering action LA (i.e., a first steering wheel contact time) and a period of time prior to steering quiescent phase LR (i.e., a second steering wheel contact time) with relatively more power steering movements. See also [0051]: “…As noted previously, and shown in FIG. 2, such behavior is characterized by a first steering quiescent phase LR without any steering activity, or with only a minor amount of steering activity, followed by a second steering action phase LA with above-average powerful steering movements…”)
wherein the degree of the driver’s carelessness is determined according to the determined headway level and the calculated steering wheel contact time. (See at least [0065]: “With the probability vector O.sub.n=1 as determined in step S5, and the calculated matrix B, it is possible to determine, in a method step S6, a fatigue probability vector S', whose elements each represent probabilities P (fatigue level) that the detected degree of inattentiveness by the driver in steering of the vehicle is associated with individual, predetermined and suitably selected fatigue levels…” & [0069-0070]: “The calculation rule (5) just described for calculation of the fatigue probability vector S' has the disadvantage that it is based only on an evaluation of the steering wheel angle x as an indicator (n=1). Other possible observable effects of fatigue, such as those indicated in FIG. 5 by the indicators 2 (for example eyelid closure frequency) or the indicator 3 (for example reaction time) are not included in the formula 5 for calculation of the fatigue probability vector. However, it is also possible to use these indicators 2 and 3 as well as further suitable indicators n (for example the yaw angle of the vehicle, the distance from the vehicle in front or the leaving of a lane, to the extent that these can be measured) to calculate a more precise fatigue probability vector S"…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe’s method with Bukman’s technique of determining the driver is careless using a steering wheel contact time and a determined headway level. Doing so would be obvious to “more reliably identify possible inattentiveness of the driver” (See [0008] of Bukman). Regarding claim 3, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Bukman additionally teaches:
wherein the determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless further includes sending a warning alarm based on the steering wheel contact time. (See at least 0037]: “Inattentiveness by the driver is identified by running a computer program 122 in the control device 120, using a method according to the invention and described in the following text, by evaluating the steering wheel angle x as a preferred indicator. If driver inattentiveness is found, it is advantageous for the control device 120 to drive a warning device 130 to emit audible or visual warning information to the driver. The warning information makes the driver aware of his inattentive behavior in driving of the vehicle, and provides him with the opportunity to re-establish his attention.”)
Regarding claim 5, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Okabe additionally teaches:
wherein the controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes calculating a first distance between the driving vehicle and a first vehicle on a front side of the driving vehicle in a driving direction. (See at least [0073]: “A millimeter-wave radar 47 transmits a millimeter wave with a predetermined wavelength and determines the distance from an obstacle and the relative velocity based on the time taken by the millimeter wave to return from the obstacle and the frequency change of the millimeter wave” & [0077]: “…if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small…”)
Regarding claim 11, Okabe teaches:
A control system for cruise control, the system comprising: a processor; a communication interface; a memory; and a computer program loaded into the memory and executed by the processor, (See at least Fig. 9 & [0086]: “FIG. 9 is a block diagram illustrating a control system of the vehicle 3 for controlling the vehicle 3 when the driver is determined to be irritated. The driver condition estimation device 50 is connected via an in-vehicle LAN such as a controller area network (CAN) to a meter ECU 501, a navigation ECU 502, an engine ECU 503, a lane keeping assist (LKA) unit 504, an adaptive cruise control (ACC) unit 505, and a vehicle-to-vehicle communication unit 506…”)
wherein the processor is configured to perform processes of determining a driving mode of a driving vehicle; (See at least [0089]: “The engine ECU 503 determines target torque and then an engine control level by referring to an acceleration map based on the accelerator level, and also controls the transmission by referring to a shift map to achieve target acceleration. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the engine ECU 503 determines the engine control level and controls the gear shifter to make the acceleration and speed of the vehicle 3 lower than normal.”)
in response to determining the driving mode of the driving vehicle being a smart cruise control mode, determining a headway level of a driver, the headway level including a first headway level corresponding to a first time period during which a driver's head is out of a predetermined position, and (See at least Fig. 7(b), [0077]: “…For example, if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small, the driver condition estimating unit 50a determines that the driver is irritated…”, [0091-0092]: “The ACC unit 505 causes the vehicle 3 to follow a vehicle ahead at a distance selected, for example, from three levels. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the ACC unit 505 sets the distance at the highest one of the three levels or at an even higher level…If the LKA unit 504 and the ACC unit 505 are turned off by the driver, the control variable changing unit 50b turns on the units after reporting and then starts the safety control” & [0097]: “During driving, it can be assumed that the driver is not irritated or the level of irritation is low if the driver allows a vehicle to get into a position in front of the vehicle 3, keeps driving in the same driving lane, keeps a fairly large distance from a vehicle ahead, or abides by stop signs…”)
determining whether a driver of the driving vehicle is careless… (See at least [0077]: “The driver condition estimating unit 50a detects behavior indicating irritation of the driver while the driver is driving. For example, if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small, the driver condition estimating unit 50a determines that the driver is irritated…”)
…controlling the driving vehicle to adjust a distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle based on a degree of driver’s carelessness… (See at least [0077]: “…For example, if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small, the driver condition estimating unit 50a determines that the driver is irritated…” and [0091]: “The ACC unit 505 causes the vehicle 3 to follow a vehicle ahead at a distance selected, for example, from three levels. When irritation of the driver is detected and a request is sent from the control variable changing unit 50b, the ACC unit 505 sets the distance at the highest one of the three levels or at an even higher level. The above measures allow the driver to notice that he/she is irritated and to calm down…”)
Although Okabe does not explicitly teach a second headway level corresponding to a second time period during which the driver’s head is out of the predetermined position that is longer than the first time period, Okabe does teach detecting behavior indicating irritation of the driver “while the driver is driving”, an example of which is maintaining a “small” inter-vehicle distance (i.e., headway level), meaning that the inter-vehicle distance can change over time (See at least [0051-0052] & [0076-0077] of Okabe). Okabe additionally teaches that “as the number of detected behavioral events increases, the level of irritation of the driver increases”, meaning that behavior indicating irritation of the driver occurs more than once (See at least [0076-0077] & [0079] of Okabe). Therefore, the teachings of Okabe render obvious additional headway levels, and, thus, time periods in which the driver exceeds the “safe distance” (See [0157] of Okabe), which provides the benefit of “mak[ing] it possible to ensure the safety even when the driver is irritated” (See [0091] of Okabe).
Additionally, Okabe does not explicitly teach:
…wherein the determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless includes calculating a steering wheel contact time of the driving vehicle,
the steering wheel contact time includes a first steering wheel contact time and a second steering wheel contact time, the second steering wheel contact time is shorter than the first steering wheel contact time; and
…wherein the degree of the driver’s carelessness is determined according to the determined headway level and the calculated steering wheel contact time.
Bukman teaches:
…wherein the determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless includes calculating a steering wheel contact time of the driving vehicle, (See at least [000037-0038]: “Inattentiveness by the driver is identified by running a computer program 122 in the control device 120, using a method according to the invention and described in the following text, by evaluating the steering wheel angle x as a preferred indicator…FIG. 2 shows a typical profile of the steering wheel angle, such as occurs when inattentiveness by the driver has been identified with the aid of the present invention. In this profile, first of all, the driver has a steering quiescent phase LR in which he makes no significant changes. Thus, in FIG. 2, the steering angle x remains in the deflection range Ax, which is bounded by the two parallel horizontal lines, throughout the steering quiescent phase LR. The occurrence of inattentiveness in the sense of the invention is then characterized by a very sharp or powerfiil steering action which follows this steering quiescent phase. This powerful steering action LA is represented in FIG. 2 by the rapid rise in the steering angle x at the end of the quiescent phase”)
the steering wheel contact time includes a first steering wheel contact time and a second steering wheel contact time, the second steering wheel contact time is shorter than the first steering wheel contact time; and (See at least Fig. 2, which shows steering action LA (i.e., a first steering wheel contact time) and a period of time prior to steering quiescent phase LR (i.e., a second steering wheel contact time) with relatively more power steering movements. See also [0051]: “…As noted previously, and shown in FIG. 2, such behavior is characterized by a first steering quiescent phase LR without any steering activity, or with only a minor amount of steering activity, followed by a second steering action phase LA with above-average powerful steering movements…”)
…wherein the degree of the driver’s carelessness is determined according to the determined headway level and the calculated steering wheel contact time. (See at least [0065]: “With the probability vector O.sub.n=1 as determined in step S5, and the calculated matrix B, it is possible to determine, in a method step S6, a fatigue probability vector S', whose elements each represent probabilities P (fatigue level) that the detected degree of inattentiveness by the driver in steering of the vehicle is associated with individual, predetermined and suitably selected fatigue levels…” & [0069-0070]: “The calculation rule (5) just described for calculation of the fatigue probability vector S' has the disadvantage that it is based only on an evaluation of the steering wheel angle x as an indicator (n=1). Other possible observable effects of fatigue, such as those indicated in FIG. 5 by the indicators 2 (for example eyelid closure frequency) or the indicator 3 (for example reaction time) are not included in the formula 5 for calculation of the fatigue probability vector. However, it is also possible to use these indicators 2 and 3 as well as further suitable indicators n (for example the yaw angle of the vehicle, the distance from the vehicle in front or the leaving of a lane, to the extent that these can be measured) to calculate a more precise fatigue probability vector S"…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe’s method with Bukman’s technique of determining the driver is careless using a steering wheel contact time and a determined headway level. Doing so would be obvious to “more reliably identify possible inattentiveness of the driver” (See [0008] of Bukman).
Regarding claim 13, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Bukman additionally teaches:
wherein the process of determining whether the driver of the driving vehicle is careless further includes a process of sending a warning alarm based on the steering wheel contact time. (See at least 0037]: “Inattentiveness by the driver is identified by running a computer program 122 in the control device 120, using a method according to the invention and described in the following text, by evaluating the steering wheel angle x as a preferred indicator. If driver inattentiveness is found, it is advantageous for the control device 120 to drive a warning device 130 to emit audible or visual warning information to the driver. The warning information makes the driver aware of his inattentive behavior in driving of the vehicle, and provides him with the opportunity to re-establish his attention.”)
Regarding claim 15, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Bukman additionally teaches:
wherein the process of controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes a process of calculating a first distance between the driving vehicle and a first vehicle on a front side of the driving vehicle. (See at least [0073]: “A millimeter-wave radar 47 transmits a millimeter wave with a predetermined wavelength and determines the distance from an obstacle and the relative velocity based on the time taken by the millimeter wave to return from the obstacle and the frequency change of the millimeter wave” & [0077]: “…if the distance from a vehicle ahead detected by the millimeter-wave radar 47 is small…”)
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Bukman and further in view of Makino of JP 2000233663 A, filed 02/16/1999, hereinafter “Makino”.
Regarding claim 6, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Okabe and Bukman in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle in the driving direction.
Makino teaches:
wherein the controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle in the driving direction. (See at least [0016]: “…Similarly, the rear distance calculation unit 21 responds to a signal from the rear distance measurement means 14 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance B to the rear vehicle 63 at regular time intervals, and stores the value in the RAM 52 .”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe and Bukman’s method with Makino’s technique of calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle. Doing so would be obvious for “…reducing the risk of a rear-end collision and enabling the driver to concentrate on avoiding a rear-end collision with the vehicle in front without being distracted by the vehicle behind” (See [0007] of Makino).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Makino additionally teaches:
wherein the controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle based on the first distance and the second distance. (See at least [0035]: “In step 110, if the inter-vehicle distance B is smaller than the inter-vehicle distance A, in one embodiment, an acceleration control process (111) is performed so that the inter-vehicle distance B becomes equal to the inter-vehicle distance A…”)
Regarding claim 16, Okabe and Bukman in combination teach all the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above.
Okabe and Bukman in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the process of controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes a process of calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle.
Makino teaches:
wherein the process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes a process of calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle. (See at least [0016]: “…Similarly, the rear distance calculation unit 21 responds to a signal from the rear distance measurement means 14 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance B to the rear vehicle 63 at regular time intervals, and stores the value in the RAM 52 .”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe and Bukman’s control system with Makino’s technique of calculating a second distance between the driving vehicle and a second vehicle on a rear side of the driving vehicle. Doing so would be obvious for “…reducing the risk of a rear-end collision and enabling the driver to concentrate on avoiding a rear-end collision with the vehicle in front without being distracted by the vehicle behind” (See [0007] of Makino).
Regarding claim 17, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above.
Makino additionally teaches:
wherein the process of controlling the driving vehicle to adjust the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle further includes a process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle based on the first distance and the second distance. (See at least [0035]: “In step 110, if the inter-vehicle distance B is smaller than the inter-vehicle distance A, in one embodiment, an acceleration control process (111) is performed so that the inter-vehicle distance B becomes equal to the inter-vehicle distance A…”)
Regarding claim 21, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above.
Bukman additionally teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to further perform processes of: upon determining that the headway level is the first headway level, determining the degree of the driver's carelessness to be a first degree in response to the steering wheel contact time being the first steering wheel contact time, and determining the degree of the driver's carelessness to be a second degree in response to the steering wheel contact time being the second steering wheel contact time. (See at least [0051]: “The variance ratio calculated in the method step S2 therefore represents a reliable measure of the degree of inattentiveness of the driver in steering of the vehicle at the time t1, because it effectively records the typical steering behavior of a driver when he is not paying attention. As noted previously, and shown in FIG. 2, such behavior is characterized by a first steering quiescent phase LR without any steering activity, or with only a minor amount of steering activity, followed by a second steering action phase LA with above-average powerful steering movements…As long as the variance ratio is .ltoreq.1, this indicates that the driver is not inattentive. Only when the variance ratio assumes a value greater than 1 does this indicate that the driver of the vehicle is not paying sufficient attention to the road traffic” & [0093]: “The extent of the steering quiescent phase and of the steering action are then linked to one another in the method step S4/2 by means of a multidimensional operator (which may be a family of characteristics, a weighting function or a logical decision function). The result of this use of the multidimensional operator then represents a suitable measure for the severity of the inattentiveness of the driver in steering of the vehicle. The logical linking of the two extents which have been mentioned is, however, preferably carried out only when it has been found in the prior steps S2/2 or S3/2 that the extent (time duration) of the steering quiescent phase exceeds a predetermined minimum time period, and the maximum gradient of the steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined gradient threshold value…”)
Regarding claim 23, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Bukman additionally teaches:
further comprising: upon determining that the headway level is the first headway level, determining the degree of the driver's carelessness to be a first degree in response to the steering wheel contact time being the first steering wheel contact time, and determining the degree of the driver's carelessness to be a second degree in response to the steering wheel contact time being the second steering wheel contact time. (See at least [0051]: “The variance ratio calculated in the method step S2 therefore represents a reliable measure of the degree of inattentiveness of the driver in steering of the vehicle at the time t1, because it effectively records the typical steering behavior of a driver when he is not paying attention. As noted previously, and shown in FIG. 2, such behavior is characterized by a first steering quiescent phase LR without any steering activity, or with only a minor amount of steering activity, followed by a second steering action phase LA with above-average powerful steering movements…As long as the variance ratio is .ltoreq.1, this indicates that the driver is not inattentive. Only when the variance ratio assumes a value greater than 1 does this indicate that the driver of the vehicle is not paying sufficient attention to the road traffic” & [0093]: “The extent of the steering quiescent phase and of the steering action are then linked to one another in the method step S4/2 by means of a multidimensional operator (which may be a family of characteristics, a weighting function or a logical decision function). The result of this use of the multidimensional operator then represents a suitable measure for the severity of the inattentiveness of the driver in steering of the vehicle. The logical linking of the two extents which have been mentioned is, however, preferably carried out only when it has been found in the prior steps S2/2 or S3/2 that the extent (time duration) of the steering quiescent phase exceeds a predetermined minimum time period, and the maximum gradient of the steering wheel angle is greater than a predetermined gradient threshold value…”)
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe in view of Bukman and Makino and further in view of Laur of US 20160357185 A1, filed 06/04/2015, hereinafter “Laur”.
Regarding claim 22, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above.
Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the first degree, the processor is configured to perform the process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be shorter than the first distance, and in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the second degree, the processor is configured to perform the process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be longer than the first distance.
Laur teaches:
wherein in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the first degree, the processor is configured to perform the process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be shorter than the first distance, and in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the second degree, the processor is configured to perform the process of adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be longer than the first distance. (See at least [0017]: “Referring again to FIG. 1, the non-limiting example depicted shows the host-vehicle following an other-vehicle 32 on the roadway 16. As suggested above, the control-rule 30 may include or specify the minimum-following-distance 30A between the host-vehicle 12 and the other-vehicle 32 forward of the host-vehicle 12. The specified value of the minimum-following-distance 30A may be suitable when the operator 14 is attentive and may prefer to risk or sacrifice ride smoothness in exchange for reaching a destination as quickly as possible. However, if the operator 14 is sleeping, it may be preferable to follow the other-vehicle 32 at an increased or greater distance in order to provide the operator 14 a smoother ride by being less susceptible to sudden changes in speed by the other-vehicle 32. That is, the controller 22 may be configured to follow the other-vehicle 32 at a following-distance 34 that is greater than the minimum-following-distance 30A when the state-of-awareness 18 is something other than attentive, i.e. not attentive…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe, Bukman, and Makino’s method with Laur’s technique of adjusting the distance to the vehicle ahead based on the degree of driver’s carelessness. Doing so would be obvious since “With the greater following-distance, the host-vehicle 12 can likely use softer and/or less frequent braking to avoid colliding with the other-vehicle 32” (See [0017] of Laur).
Regarding claim 24, Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination teach all the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above.
Okabe, Bukman, and Makino in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the first degree, adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be shorter than the first distance, and in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the second degree, adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be longer than the first distance.
Laur teaches:
wherein in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the first degree, adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be shorter than the first distance, and in response to the degree of the driver's carelessness being the second degree, adjusting the distance between the driving vehicle and another vehicle to cause the second distance to be longer than the first distance. (See at least [0017]: “Referring again to FIG. 1, the non-limiting example depicted shows the host-vehicle following an other-vehicle 32 on the roadway 16. As suggested above, the control-rule 30 may include or specify the minimum-following-distance 30A between the host-vehicle 12 and the other-vehicle 32 forward of the host-vehicle 12. The specified value of the minimum-following-distance 30A may be suitable when the operator 14 is attentive and may prefer to risk or sacrifice ride smoothness in exchange for reaching a destination as quickly as possible. However, if the operator 14 is sleeping, it may be preferable to follow the other-vehicle 32 at an increased or greater distance in order to provide the operator 14 a smoother ride by being less susceptible to sudden changes in speed by the other-vehicle 32. That is, the controller 22 may be configured to follow the other-vehicle 32 at a following-distance 34 that is greater than the minimum-following-distance 30A when the state-of-awareness 18 is something other than attentive, i.e. not attentive…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Okabe, Bukman, and Makino’s method with Laur’s technique of adjusting the distance to the vehicle ahead based on the degree of driver’s carelessness. Doing so would be obvious since “With the greater following-distance, the host-vehicle 12 can likely use softer and/or less frequent braking to avoid colliding with the other-vehicle 32” (See [0017] of Laur).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100039249 A1 is directed to detecting whether a driver is inattentive based on the frequencies of steering corrections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662