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 Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 09/11/2025. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuyunashi et al. (U.S. 2016/0159366 A1) in view of Rao et al. (U.S. 2015/0307106 A1).
Claim 1, Tsuyunashi teaches:
A proposal device (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 1: “DRIVING ASSISTANCE SERVER”, Fig. 2: 20), comprising:
a memory (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 2: 23, 24); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 2: 22, Paragraph [0035], The control unit 22 collects information via the information collecting unit 25, and utilizes the information from the information collecting unit 25 and the history storage unit 23 to generate models and determining states of the driver by utilizing the model generating unit 26 and the state determining unit 28, respectively. The control unit 22 is thus functionally equivalent to a processor.), the processor being configured to:
acquire, from a vehicle, status information related to a state of the vehicle and a state of an onboard device (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0035], The information collecting unit 25 collets information from each in-vehicle device 10, which includes the state of the driver, a driving operation state, the running location of the vehicle, the driving path of the vehicle, and the surrounding state of the vehicle. This data includes data relating to brake operation, accelerator operation, and a winker operation, which are examples of onboard devices of the vehicle (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044]).),
perform diagnosis of a trend in operation of the onboard device by a driver of the vehicle, based on the acquired status information (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0036-0038], The model generating unit 26 performs statistic processing or the like based on information stored in the history storage unit 23 and models the behavior transition of the corresponding driver, which is functionally equivalent to performing diagnosis of a trend in operation. The driving operation(s) of the driver include the use of onboard devices (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044]).), and
present a display on a monitor of the vehicle (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0057], The visual notification includes a warning using characters, images, and the like for calling driver’s attention. The notification information may be displayed on the HUD 17 (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0059]).), proposing, to the driver, introduction of an application that provides notification of an operation (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0056-0060], If it is determined that a driver is operating in an unsafe driving condition, a notification having a specified notification level is presented to the driver. Thus, the application is a notification application.), in a case in which results of the diagnosis indicate a tendency by the driver to operate the onboard device (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0043-0044], An unsafe driving condition is based on a current behavior transition of the driver compared with the historical behavior transition, as determined by the models generated by the model generating unit 26.),
wherein the diagnosis includes:
detecting one or more predetermined states indicating that the driver has operated the onboard device differently (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044], The system determines whether the driver has transitioned at least one driving operation significantly different from that of the personal behavior estimation model.) and
determining that there is a tendency by the driver to forget to operate the onboard device in a case in which a number of the detected predetermined states exceeds a predetermined number per unit time (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044], In the listed example, when a driver forgets to operate the brake and/or accelerator, and the winker, which is significantly different than that of the personal behavior estimation model, the tendency of the driver during the example indicates the predetermined states exceeding a predetermined number of one.).
Tsuyunashi does not explicitly teach:
Proposing installation of an application;
the application that provides notification of a forgotten operation, in a case in which results of the diagnosis indicate a tendency by the driver to forget to operate the onboard device,
wherein the diagnosis includes:
detecting one or more predetermined states indicating that the driver has forgotten an operation of the onboard device.
As per the limitations of a forgotten operation and the driver has forgotten operation of an onboard device, however, the personal behavior estimation models include the driver’s brake operation, accelerator operation, and winker operation (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the personal behavior estimation model to include the historical brake, accelerator, and/or winker operation or lack thereof. For example, if the driver historically operates their winker, if the current condition lacks the operation of the winker, i.e. is a different driving behavior that is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference, the driver would be operating the vehicle in an unsafe manner and a notification is generated (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0056-0060]). Therefore, the notification would be generated in response to a determination that the driver has forgotten to operate the winker.
Rao teaches:
Proposing installation of an application (Rao, Paragraphs [0013-0014], Based on driver characteristics, the recommendation application may recommend mobile applications for the driver.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Tsuyunashi by integrating the teaching of a recommendation application, as taught by Rao.
The motivation would be to help improve the driving experience of the driver (see Rao, Paragraphs [0013-0014]).
Claim 2 Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
acquire the status information from a plurality of the vehicles (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0035], Information is collected from each in-vehicle device 10.),
perform diagnosis of a trend in operation of the onboard device by a single driver of a single vehicle (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0036-0038], The models may be generated for each driver.), based on operation of the onboard device by a plurality of drivers of the plurality of vehicles from the acquired status information (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0036-0038], If a plurality of drivers operate in the same area, e.g. path Z, a common behavior estimation model may be applicable to the drivers. Additionally, the model generating unit 26 may selectively apply a common behavior estimation model to a select number of drivers instead of every driver (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0048]).), and
present a display on the monitor of the vehicle, proposing, to the single driver, installation of the application (Rao, Paragraphs [0013-0014], The recommendation may be presented, for example, on a vehicle display.), in a case in which results of the diagnosis indicate a tendency by the single driver to forget to operate the onboard device (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0056-0060], Unsafe driving behavior includes the transition of certain devices of a vehicle, e.g. a winker (see Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044]).).
Claim 3, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
acquire a plurality of types of the status information from a single vehicle (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0035], The information collecting unit 25 collects information including the state of the driver, driving operation state, running location of the vehicle, driving path of the vehicle, and surrounding state of the vehicle.), and
perform diagnosis of a trend in operation of the onboard device by a single driver of a single vehicle (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0036-0038], The models may be generated for each driver.), based on operation of a plurality of the onboard devices by the single driver from the acquired plurality of types of the status information (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0044], Examples of onboard devices include brakes, accelerator, and winker.).
Claim 4, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to exclude, from a target of the diagnosis, status information that matches a preset condition (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0042], The target of the diagnosis is interpreted as being equivalent to a determination of safe or unsafe vehicle operation. Thus, driving behavior that matches “normal” driving behavior, as determined in the models, is effectively excluded from an unsafe operation determination.).
Claim 5, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
A proposal system (Tsuyunashi, Figs. 1 and 2), comprising:
The proposal device of claim 1 (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 1: “DRIVING ASSISTANCE SERVER”, Fig. 2: 20); and
an onboard unit that is installed in the vehicle (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 1: “IN-VEHICLE DEVICE”, Fig. 2: 10), that is configured communicatively with the proposal device (Tsuyunashi, Fig. 1, Fig. 2: 2, Paragraph [0025], Each in-vehicle device 10 communicates with the server 20 via network 2.), and that collects the status information (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0035]).
Claim 6, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein the one or more predetermined states include at least one of:
a state in which a winker switch included in the onboard device is not in operation during a right or left turn of the vehicle; or
a state in which a winker switch or a hazard lamp included in the onboard device is being operated while the vehicle is traveling straight (Tsuyunashi, Paragraphs [0028] and [0044], It is within the scope of the teachings of Tsuyunashi in view of Rao for a winker operation that varies significantly different from the personal behavior estimation model to include the situation of the driver not activating the winker during a right or left turn. It is further noted that it is also within the scope of the teachings of Tsuyunashi that if the driver does not normally operate the winker during a left or right turn, an operation of the winker would also indicate a variation from the personal behavior estimation model.).
Claim 7, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to present the display when an ignition switch is turned on (Tsuyunashi, Paragraph [0059], In the example, the HUD 17 provides a notification the driver regarding how the driver should carefully drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the system to be capable of presenting the notification via the HUD 17 when the ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on in order to provide the notification while the driver is driving the vehicle.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuyunashi et al. (U.S. 2016/0159366 A1) in view of Rao et al. (U.S. 2015/0307106 A1) in view of Wilson (U.S. 2016/0112517 A1).
Claim 8, Tsuyunashi in view of Rao further teaches:
The proposal device of claim 1, wherein a display includes a selection button selectable by the driver (Rao, Paragraphs [0018] and [0032], The vehicle includes a plurality of preset buttons and a touchscreen display. The nomadic device 53 can be a smart phone having its own user interface, e.g. a touchscreen.) to install the application that provides notification of a forgotten operation (Rao, Paragraph [0034], A mobile application 204 may be installed on the nomadic device 53. An example of a notification of a forgotten operation includes an application configured to provide alerts according to the driver-specific driving of the vehicle (see Rao, Paragraph [0013]).), and the processor is configured to install the application in response to the selection button being selected by the driver (Rao, Paragraph [0034], The mobile application 204 may be downloaded to the nomadic device 53 from the application store 208.).
Tsuyunashi in view of Rao does not specifically teach:
The display [of the vehicle] includes a selection button selectable by the driver to install the application.
Wilson teaches:
The display [of the vehicle] includes a selection button selectable by the driver (Wilson, Paragraph [0024], The user interface 44 includes a display or a touchscreen.) to install the application (Wilson, Paragraphs [0024-0025], The user, via the application controller 30 that communicates with the user interface 44, can select applications for download to the vehicle controller 12.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Tsuyunashi in view of Rao by integrating the teaching of an application controller, as taught by Wilson.
The motivation would be to enable improvements/enhancements to vehicle performance for the user of the vehicle (see Wilson, Paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s claim amendments.
Conclusion
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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686