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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 10/19/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-5 are pending for examination.
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (title), the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification filed 10/19/2025 acceptable and withdraws the objection(s) to the specification (title).
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (embedded hyperlink in ¶[0004] on page 3), the examiner finds applicant’s arguments and amendment(s) to the specification filed 10/19/2025 do not address the hyperlink, therefore the objection to the specification is maintained.
Regarding the objection(s) to claims 1-5, the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) acceptable and withdraws objection(s) to the amended claim(s).
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C §112(b), applicant’s arguments concerning claims 2-3 are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim(s), therefore the rejections associated with the limitations of claims 2-3 are now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C §112(b), applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and amendments fail to address the issue of claims 1 and 5 reciting outputting the utterance to the moving body as opposed to outputting the utterance in the moving body. Therefore the rejection is maintained for claims 1 and 5, and dependent claims 2-4 in view of the deficiencies inherited from claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment, outlined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (¶[0004], page 3 of the specification). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 3 should read — in response to detection of a plurality of objects are detected from the captured image —.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…output to the moving object, in a case where the first time is reached, utterance content…” where it is unclear whether the utterance content is output to the moving object or by the moving object.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 1 as — output [[to]]in the moving object, in a case where the first time is reached, utterance content — based on ¶[0013] of the specification.
Dependent claims 2-4 inherit and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis as outlined above.
Independent claim 5 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take claim 5 as — outputting [[to]]in the moving object, in a case where the first time is reached, utterance content… —.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aoi et al. (US 20190056732 A1) in view of Tao et al. (US 20190185018 A1) and Jung (US 20120089321 A1), henceforth known as Aoi, Tao, and Jung, respectively.
Aoi and Tao were first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Aoi discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising a processor configured to: (Aoi, FIG. 2; ¶[0110]¶[0113]; ¶[0209]-¶[0210])
determine a first time that precedes a notification for announcing in advance of a switching from autonomous driving of a moving object to manned driving, in a case where occurrence of the switching is predicted due to the moving object, capable of autonomous driving, approaching a predetermined location; (Aoi, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; ¶[0012]; ¶[0100]-¶[0103]; ¶[0107]-¶0108]; ¶[0003]-¶[0004];¶[0122]; ¶[0146]-¶[0151]; Where the automated driving assistance system 50 determines a time for issuing a switch request in advance of a switching from an automated driving of the vehicle to manual driving, in a case where occurrence of the switching is predicted due to the vehicle, capable of automated driving, approaching a predetermined position, such an accident or congestion zone where automated driving is not possible)
… output [[to]]in the moving object, in a case where the first time is reached, utterance content… (Aoi, FIG. 4; ¶[0147]-¶[0151]; Where the automated driving assistance system 50 outputs via a speaker mounted in the vehicle, when the vehicle reaches the appropriate time, an announcement of the driving mode switch request).
Aoi is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tao teaches:
output [[to]]in the moving object, in a case where the first time is reached, utterance content that takes, as a topic, an object that is present in front of the moving object, the object being detected from a captured image from an on-board camera of the moving object. (Tao, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4A; FIG. 4B; FIG. 5; FIG. 6A; FIG. 6B; FIG. 7; FIG. 9; ¶[0019]; ¶[0045]; ¶[0050]; ¶[0051]-¶[0056]; ¶[0062]-¶[0063]; ¶[0072]-¶[0073]; ¶[0075]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0036]; Where the autonomous vehicle 101 outputs the highest level alarm when more than one alarm level is detected at one time; as such, the autonomous vehicle will output a level 3 sound alarm in the vehicle, in a case where a level 2 alarm is detected for a situation in which a driver will imminently take over the autonomous vehicle described in ¶[0072], i.e. a time for switching from autonomous to manual is reached, wherein the output sound alarm is the level 3 alarm identifying obstacles immediately preventing the autonomous vehicle from performing autonomous driving such as the situation of ¶[0073], requiring the driver to takeover immediately, the obstacles being detected by an image from an onboard camera of the autonomous vehicle).
Aoi and Tao are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jung teaches:
determine whether an operator of the moving object is facing a front of the moving object; and (Jung, FIG. 1; FIG. 3; ¶[0039]; Where the vehicle system determines the driver is not facing a forward movement direction of the vehicle)
in response to a determination that the operator is not facing the front of the moving object, output [[to]]in the moving object… utterance content that… an object that is present in front of the moving object, the object being detected from a captured image from an on-board camera of the moving object. (Jung, FIG. 1; FIG. 3; ¶[0039]; ¶[0043]; ¶[0045]; Where the vehicle system, in response to determining that the driver is bot facing forward, requests obstacle data in the forward direction of the vehicle, and outputs an alarm in the vehicle indicating the presence of an obstacle in the front of the vehicle, wherein the obstacle is captured by a camera onboard the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Aoi and Tao with the features taught by Jung “…It would be particularly desirable to provide such system and methods which can use road specific information, driver viewing direction and sensing of obstacles in a moving direction of a car while a driver is viewing in another direction so as to provide such an alarm of a potential impact” (Jung, ¶[0007]).
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 2, Aoi, Tao, and Jung teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tao further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: (Tao, FIG. 1; ¶[0027])
generate first utterance content that results from an utterance from an onboard person in the moving object; (Tao, FIG. 6B; ¶[0090]; ¶[0050]-¶[0056]; Where the autonomous vehicle generates a level 1 alarm that results from a discomfort level of the passenger in the autonomous vehicle)
generate second utterance content that takes, as a topic, the object detected from the captured image from the on-board camera; and (Tao, FIG. 1; FIG. 4B; FIG. 6A; FIG. 6B; ¶[0050]-¶[0056]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0075]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0036]; Where the autonomous vehicle generates a level 3 alarm that takes, as a topic, obstacles detected from the image from the onboard camera)
determine utterance content to be output, from the first utterance content and the second utterance content, wherein in the case where the first time is reached, the second utterance content is prioritized over the first utterance content, and the second utterance content that takes, as the topic, the object that is present in front of the moving object is determined to be the utterance content to be output. (Tao, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4A; FIG. 4B; FIG. 5; FIG. 6A; FIG. 6B; FIG. 7; FIG. 9; ¶[0090]; ¶[0019]; ¶[0045]; ¶[0050]; ¶[0051]-¶[0056]; ¶[0062]-¶[0063]; ¶[0072]-¶[0073]; ¶[0075]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0036]; Where the autonomous vehicle 101 outputs the highest level alarm when more than one alarm level is detected at one time; as such, the autonomous vehicle will output a level 3 sound alarm in the vehicle, in a case where a level 1 alarm is detected for passenger discomfort at a time when a level 2 alarm is detected for a situation in which a driver will imminently take over the autonomous vehicle described in ¶[0072], i.e. the time for switching from autonomous to manual is reached, wherein the output sound alarm is the level 3 alarm identifying obstacles immediately preventing the autonomous vehicle from performing autonomous driving such as the situation of ¶[0073], requiring the driver to takeover immediately, the obstacles being detected by an image from an onboard camera of the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Aoi and Jung with the features taught by Tao for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Aoi, Tao, and Jung teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Aoi further discloses:
wherein the processor determines the first time based on at least one of a state of an onboard person in the moving object, a type of a road where the moving object is traveling, and a type of a location that is a cause of occurrence of the switching. (Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0129]-¶0137]; ¶[0063]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0101]; Where the automated driving assistance system 50 determines the time of the notification based on the driver state in the autonomous vehicle, whether an exit of the interchange IC closest to the destination is approached, and whether there is upcoming traffic congestion or an accident that requires switching to manual driving).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Aoi with the features taught by Tao and Jung for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aoi, Tao, and Jung as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Ito et al. (US 20120161951 A1), henceforth known as Ito.
Ito was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 3, Aoi and Tao teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Tao further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: (Tao, FIG. 1; ¶[0027]; ¶[0062]-¶[0063])
in response to detection of a plurality of objects from the captured image from the on-board camera… utterance content that takes, as a topic,… the plurality of objects detected from the captured image from the on-board camera; and (Tao, FIG. 4B; ¶[0050]-¶[0056]; ¶[0062]-¶[0063]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0036]; Where when the autonomous vehicle 101 detects a plurality of obstacles from the image from the onboard camera, a level 3 alarm may be generated that identifies the plurality of obstacles, as described in ¶0073])
determine the utterance content to be output, based on the degree of priority, wherein in the case where the first time is reached, the degree of priority is set higher for the utterance content that takes, as the topic, an object that is present… in front of the moving object. (Tao, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 4A; FIG. 4B; FIG. 5; FIG. 6A; FIG. 6B; FIG. 7; FIG. 9; ¶[0090]; ¶[0019]; ¶[0045]; ¶[0050]; ¶[0051]-¶[0056]; ¶[0072]-¶[0073]; ¶[0075]; ¶[0022]; ¶[0036]; Where the autonomous vehicle 101 outputs the highest level alarm when more than one alarm level is detected at one time; as such, the autonomous vehicle will output a level 3 sound alarm in the vehicle, in a case when a level 2 alarm is detected for a situation in which a driver will imminently take over the autonomous vehicle described in ¶[0072], i.e. the time for switching from autonomous to manual is reached, wherein the output sound alarm is the level 3 alarm identifying obstacles immediately preventing the autonomous vehicle from performing autonomous driving such as the situation of ¶[0073], requiring the driver to takeover immediately, the obstacles in front of the vehicle as shown in FIG. 4B being detected by an image from an onboard camera of the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Aoi and Jung with the features taught by Tao for at least the same reasons outlined above in claim 1.
Aoi, Tao, and Jung are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to: (Ito, FIG. 1; FIG. 3; ¶[0035]; ¶[0041])
in response to a detection of a plurality of objects from the captured image from the… camera, set a degree of priority to each of at least one utterance content that takes, as a topic, a respective one of at least one of the plurality of objects detected from the captured image from the…camera; and (Ito, FIG. 5; ¶[0028]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0040]; ¶[0052]-¶[0059]; Where a plurality of obstacles are detected from an image from a camera and a degree of priority is set for each warning associated with each obstacle detected by the camera)
determine the utterance content to be output, based on the degree of priority, wherein… the degree of priority is set higher for the utterance content that takes, as the topic, an object that is present in a predetermined range in front of the moving object. (Ito, FIG. 5; ¶[0028]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0040]; ¶[0052]-¶[0059]; Where the processor determines the warning to be output based on the priority of the obstacle wherein the degree of prior is higher for warnings about an obstacle that is present within a threshold distance in front of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention if Aoi, Tao, and Jung with the features taught by Ito because “…Suppose a case where the technology of notifying the driver of the obstacle existence operates in the situation where many obstacles exist in a periphery of the vehicle that is going to turn at an intersection. In such a case, even if the existences of many obstacles are reported, the driver may sense troublesome or, be confused about the existences of too many obstacles” (Ito, ¶[0006]) and “…To that end, the order of the notification relative to the detected obstacles may be determined; thereby, based on the determined order, the existences of the obstacles may be notified” (Ito, ¶[0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno et al. (US 20190039628 A1) discloses a vehicle-surrounding monitoring device includes: a line-of-sight direction determination section that determines a direction of a line of sight of a driver; an obstacle determination section that determines whether an obstacle is disposed in a predetermined direction around a vehicle; and a notification control section that notifies notification information indicating a determination result of the obstacle determination section in another direction around the vehicle with a notification unit when it is determined that the direction of the line of sight of the driver is one direction around the 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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/T.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights