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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatsumi (US 2019/0056732 A1) and in view of Fujino (US 2024/0300544 A1).
Regarding claims 1, and 21, Hatsumi discloses an automated driver assistance apparatus/ system, a method, and a computer program for switching from automated driving to manual driving based on the state of the driver detected by the driver monitoring unit (13) (see at least Fig. 1; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0011, 0045, 0067, 0100, and 0125), wherein the driver monitoring unit (13) monitors the state of the driver using the image captured by the camera (22), and the biological information of the driver obtained from the sensor (23), wherein the automated driver assistance apparatus includes a memory (15), a calculation unit (16), and another units for communicating with the driver monitoring unit (13) (see paragraph 0205). Hatsumi suggests using the driver monitoring unit (13) as a mobile unit during driving of the vehicle (20). Hatsumi also suggests using the automated driving assistance program to cause the vehicle to remain in automated driving mode, or cause the driver monitoring unit (13) to send a transition demand to switch from the automated driving mode to manual driving mode.
Hatsumi is not disclosing the newly added features: “wherein the mobile device is not a part of the vehicle and is located in a cabin of the vehicle; and determine, based on at least one of a position of the mobile device, or whether the mobile device is manipulated based on a touch notification output through the mobile, whether a driver state is an available state for a manual driving mode.”
Fujino discloses a driver monitoring device, a driver monitoring method, and non-transitory recording medium, in which the judgment part (25) determines the driver's state (awake/available) by analyzing inputs (e.g, touch, button, voice) to the terminal (11) within a predetermined time period (see paragraph 0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driver assistance apparatus as taught by Hatsumi with the teachings as taught by Fujino to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of verifying that the driver is actively engaged, awake, attentive and capable of operating the vehicle safely.
Regarding claims 3, Hatsumi discloses and suggests that the automated driver assistance apparatus/system determines the driver state by using an information sensor (e.g, sensor 23 shown in Fig. 2) inside the vehicle and the driver monitoring unit (13).
Regarding claims 4-7, Hatsumi discloses and suggests the following:
In Hatsumi, the automated driver assistance apparatus/system determines whether the driver’s state is available for manual driving (see paragraph 0019).
Hatsumi discloses that the driver monitoring unit (13) is a part of the automated driving assistance apparatus of a passenger car which belongs to a driver (see at least abstract).
In Hatsumi, the state of the driver is monitored by the driver monitoring unit (13) using the camera (22) which is located next to the driver seat (see at least paragraphs 0045, and 0055).
Hatsumi discloses that the driver monitoring unit (13) discloses that the driver monitoring unit (13) detects the state of the driver (see at least paragraph 0100), wherein the driver monitoring unit (13) is a part of the automated driving assistance system (50).
Fujino discloses that the ECU (20) communicates with the terminal (11) via a short-range wireless communication module (see at least paragraphs 0046, and 0047).
Regarding claim 15, Hatsumi discloses the mobile device, such as the mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, key fob, etc. which are associated with a particular person (see paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 16, Hatsumi discloses that the sensor system (125) includes one or more sensors and cameras which are connected to the processor (110), the data store (115), etc. (see paragraphs 0038, 0039, 0046), wherein the combination of sensors and the cameras are provided for identifying the current driver of the vehicle (see at least paragraphs 0019, 0032, and 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Hatsumi discloses that the automated driver assistance apparatus/system determines whether the driver’s state is available for manual driving (see paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 12, Hatsumi further discloses the features of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: determine whether manipulation of the mobile device occurs at predetermined intervals; and based on a determination that the manipulation of the mobile device does not occur at the predetermined intervals, determine that the driver state is in unavailable state in which the TD is not to be sent” (see at least paragraphs 0010, 0011, and 0018).
Regarding claim 13, Hatsumi further discloses the features of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further causes the apparatus to: determine whether pupils of a driver are detected via a front camera of the mobile device; and based on a determination that the pupils of the driver are not detected via the front camera of the mobile device, determine that the driver state is an unavailable state in which the TD is not to be sent” (see at least paragraphs 0046, 0067, 0138, 0141).
Regarding claim 17, Hatsumi discloses an automated driver assistance method for switching from automated driving to manual driving based on the state of the driver detected by the driver monitoring unit (13) (see at least Fig. 1; paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0011, 0045, 0067, 0100, and 0125), wherein the driver monitoring unit (13) monitors the state of the driver using the image captured by the camera (22), and the biological information of the driver obtained from the sensor (23), wherein the automated driver assistance apparatus includes a memory (15), a calculation unit (16), and another units for communicating with the driver monitoring unit (13) (see paragraph 0205). Hatsumi suggests using the driver monitoring unit (13) as a mobile unit during driving of the vehicle (20). Hatsumi also suggests using the automated driving assistance program to cause the vehicle to remain in automated driving mode, or cause the driver monitoring unit (13) to send a transition demand to switch from the automated driving mode to manual driving mode.
Hatsumi is not disclosing the newly added features: “communicating, by a processor of the vehicle via a communication interface of the vehicle with a mobile device, wherein the mobile device is not a part of the vehicle and is located in a cabin of the vehicle; and and determine, based on at least one of a position of the mobile device, or whether the mobile device is manipulated based on a touch notification output through the mobile, whether a driver state is an available state for a manual driving mode.”
Fujino discloses a driver monitoring device, a driver monitoring method, and non-transitory recording medium, in which the judgment part (25) determines the driver's state (awake/available) by analyzing inputs (e.g, touch, button, voice) to the terminal (11) within a predetermined time period (see paragraph 0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automated driver assistance apparatus as taught by Hatsumi with the teachings as taught by Fujino to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of verifying that the driver is actively engaged, awake, attentive and capable of operating the vehicle safely.
Regarding claim 20, Hatsumi discloses and suggests that the automated driver assistance apparatus/system determines the driver state by using an information sensor (e.g, sensor 23 shown in Fig. 2) inside the vehicle and the driver monitoring unit (13).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatsumi (US 2019/0056732 A1), Fujino (US 2024/0300544 A1), and further in view of Oba (US 2023/0054024 A1).
Hatsumi and Fujino disclose the limitations as claimed except for following features “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to determine the driver state at a conditional autonomous driving level among a plurality of autonomous driving levels.”
Oba discloses a system and method for switching from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode, in which the driver state is determined at a conditional autonomous driving level among a plurality of autonomous driving levels (see at least paragraphs 0060, and 0065, and 0151).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hatsumi and Fujino with the teachings as taught by Oba to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of determining whether or not the driver has the ability required for returning to manual driving.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatsumi (US 2019/0056732 A1), Fujino (US 2024/0300544 A1), and further in view of Gulash (US 20170110022 A1).
Regarding claim 11, neither Hatsumi nor Fujino discloses or even suggests the features of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to determine that the driver state is an available state in which the TD is not to be sent based on a determination that the mobile device is not positioned proximate to a driver seat or the mobile device is positioned in a passenger seat or a rear seat.”
Gulash discloses a vehicular system for a transition from an autonomous mode to a manual mode (see at least paragraph 0018, 0052, and 0053) based on the data stored in the data stores (115), wherein the stored data includes the driver-related data (118) such as the data related to a person sitting in the driver seat, and wherein the driver-related data (118) is a mobile device such as mobile phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, etc. associated with a person.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hatsumi and Fujino with the teachings as taught by Gulash to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of disengaging the manual mode if the mobile device associated with the driver is not detected by the system.
Regarding claim 14, Hatsumi discloses that the automated driving assistance system (50), which is shown in Fig. 1, monitors the state of the driver of the vehicle (20) while the vehicle (20) is traveling on a highway through an automated driving control, and determines whether or not a switch from automated driving to manual driving can be made (see paragraph 0100). Neither Hatsumi nor Fujino discloses or even suggests the features of “output a touch notification through the mobile device to verify the driver state of the driver of the vehicle; and based on a determination that a touch manipulation of the mobile device is not performed by the driver in response to the output touch notification; and determine that the driver state is an unavailable state in which the TD is not to be sent.”
Gulash further discloses the features of “output a touch notification through the mobile device to verify the driver state of the driver of the vehicle; and based on a determination that a touch manipulation of the mobile device is not performed by the driver in response to the output touch notification; and determine that the driver state is an unavailable state in which the TD is not to be sent” (see paragraph 0032, the driver-related data, which is used to identify the driver, is inputted by the driver).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hatsumi (US 2019/0056732 A1), Fujino (US 2024/0300544 A1), Oba (US 2023/0054024 A1), and further in view of Gulash (US 20170110022 A1).
. Hatsumi, Fujino, and Oba do not disclose or even suggest the features of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to perform, based on a determination that the mobile device is communication-connected to the vehicle and mobile device is not owned by a driver of the vehicle, or based on a determination that the mobile device is not communication-connected to the vehicle, a TD procedure for notifying the driver of the TD.”
Gulash discloses a vehicular system for a transition from an autonomous mode to a manual mode (see at least paragraph 0018, 0052, and 0053) based on the data stored in the data stores (115), in which the driver is notified with a transition alert when the mobile device associated with the driver is not detected (see at least paragraphs 0022, 0053, and 0072).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Hatsumi, Fujino, and Oba with the teachings as taught by Gulash to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of triggering an alert of many suitable forms if the driver is not identified by the system.
Response to Amendment
The applicant’s request for continued examination has been fully considered. However, the current claims 1-18, 20, and 21 remain being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the cited prior art of record.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ramya P Burgess, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661