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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (2) submitted on 10/16/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in reply to filing by applicant on 09/11/2025.
Claims 1 – 28 were elected by applicant due to prior restriction requirement.
Claims 1 – 28 are currently pending and have been examined.
THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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 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 USC 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, 2, 3, 11, 12, 23 – 25, and 28 are rejected pursuant to 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro (JP2019067421A, an English copy of which is attached) in view of Yonggwon (US20170057542A1) and in further view of Seo (KR20180110903A, an English copy of which is attached).
Regarding independent claims 1, 23, 24, and 28: (claim 1 here used).
Masahiro discloses:
A presentation control device that controls presentation of information to a driver of a vehicle capable of executing autonomous driving, the presentation control device comprising:
a determination unit that determines a switch between a monitoring unnecessary state and a monitoring necessary state, Note that examiner, throughout these claims, interprets the above several claimed vehicle drive modes of “monitoring unnecessary state” and “monitoring necessary state” as including a vehicle’s non-autonomous state and its autonomous state, respectively; … examiner further notes that the claimed “switch” [referred to generically some 232 times in the Specification] includes any switch of any sort, whether computer performed and/or driver performed, that’s capable of changing one of the above noted two driving modes of the vehicle to the other; that said … (“When it is determined in step S4 that the operation mode is the manual operation mode, the control unit 101 monitors the switching condition to the automatic operation mode stored in the automatic operation switching condition storage unit 135 (step S5).”), the vehicle switch(ing) component is monitored and (“During normal operation, the driver of the automatic driving vehicle 1 can switch the automatic driving vehicle 1 traveling in the manual operation mode to the automatic operation mode, for example, by a predetermined operation through the touch panel 112 described later.”); the “switch” as it were could be manual and/or computer related, and both are shown above;
the monitoring unnecessary state being a state in which stoppage of periphery monitoring by the driver during execution of the autonomous driving being permitted, the monitoring necessary state being a state in which the stoppage of the periphery monitoring by the driver during execution of the autonomous driving being prohibited, Examiner interprets this limitation to include the meaning that a vehicle is monitored in its autonomous mode, … (“When it is determined in step S4 that the operation mode is the manual operation mode, the control unit 101 monitors the switching condition to the automatic operation mode stored in the automatic operation switching condition storage unit 135 (step S5).”), the vehicle is monitored in its autonomous mode;
Masahiro does not expressly disclose, but Yonggwon teaches:
the determination unit further determining whether stoppage of steering wheel grip by the driver is permittable in the monitoring necessary state; and (“In addition, in the embodiment of the present invention, the controller may perform control to again switch to the autonomous driving state when the release of the grip of the steering wheel is sensed after switching to the manual driving state.”, [021]), stoppage of wheel grip by driver is permittable in autonomous mode;
a permit state control unit that, when the monitoring unnecessary state is switched to the monitoring necessary state in which the stoppage of steering wheel grip is permittable, permits the stoppage of steering wheel grip in the monitoring necessary state Examiner interprets this limitation to include in its meaning that steering wheel grip can be stopped after switching from manual to autonomous mode … (“In addition, in the embodiment of the present invention, the controller may perform control to again switch to the autonomous driving state when the release of the grip of the steering wheel is sensed …”, [021]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Masahiro to incorporate the teachings of Yonggwon because Masahiro would be more efficient and better understood if it more clearly set forth that a driver may disengage from the steering wheel in auto mode as done in Yonggwon. (“In addition, in the embodiment of the present invention, the controller may perform control to again switch to the autonomous driving state when the release of the grip of the steering wheel is sensed after switching to the manual driving state.”, [020]).
The combination of Masahiro and Yonggwon does not expressly disclose, but Seo teaches:
after executing a grip request, which requests the driver to grip the steering wheel. (“the vehicle control device sends a warning to the driver to alert a driver of an accident when the handle grip is not detected within a predetermined first threshold time, The vehicle control apparatus can change the running mode of the vehicle to the autonomous running mode if the handle gripping is not detected within the set second threshold time.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Masahiro to incorporate the teachings of Seo because Masahiro would be more efficient and better understood if it more clearly set forth that a driver may disengage from the steering wheel in auto mode as done in Seo . (“The vehicle control apparatus can change the traveling mode of the vehicle after issuing a warning to the driver when the autonomous mode is selected by the driver and the driver does not sense whether or not the driver grasps the handle within a preset time while the vehicle is running.”).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Masahiro, Yonggwon and Seo have the limitations of claim 1:
Masahiro further teaches:
wherein the permit state control unit stops the grip request when the monitoring necessary state in which the stoppage of steering wheel grip is permittable is switched to the monitoring unnecessary state. Examiner interprets this limitation to include the meaning that there is no grip request when in autonomous mode … (“ Moreover, the automatic driving vehicle 1 of this embodiment has an automatic operation mode and a manual operation mode. The manual operation mode is a mode in which traveling can be performed according to the driver's accelerator pedal operation, brake pedal operation, shift lever operation, and steering operation (steering wheel operation), as in a normal automobile that is not an autonomous driving vehicle. Further, in the automatic driving mode, even if the driver does not operate the accelerator pedal, the brake pedal, the shift lever, and the steering, the automatic driving vehicle 1 itself automatically (autonomously) avoids obstacles while traveling.”), there is no grip request in the autonomous mode because the steering is done automatically as above.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Masahiro, Yonggwon and Seo have the limitations of claim 1:
Seo further teaches:
wherein the permit state control unit determines whether to execute the grip request based on a reason for the switch from the monitoring unnecessary state to the monitoring necessary state. Examiner interprets this limitation to include that there exists a “reason” for switching vehicle modes … (“the vehicle control device sends a warning to the driver to alert a driver of an accident when the handle grip is not detected within a predetermined first threshold time, The vehicle control apparatus can change the running mode of the vehicle to the autonomous running mode if the handle gripping is not detected within the set second threshold time.”), an alert regarding a grip request may be sent for a reason (no handle grip detected) in connection with a mode change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Masahiro to incorporate the teachings of Seo because Masahiro would be more efficient and better understood if it more clearly set forth that a driver may disengage from the steering wheel in auto mode as done in Seo . (“The vehicle control apparatus can change the traveling mode of the vehicle after issuing a warning to the driver when the autonomous mode is selected by the driver and the driver does not sense whether or not the driver grasps the handle within a preset time while the vehicle is running.”).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Masahiro, Yonggwon and Seo have the limitations of claim 1:
Masahiro further teaches:
wherein, after the monitoring unnecessary state is switched to a manual driving state and then the autonomous driving becomes possible under the monitoring necessary state in which the stoppage of steering wheel grip is permittable, the permit state control unit omits a switch to the monitoring necessary state in which the stoppage of steering wheel grip is not permitted. Examiner interprets this claim to include the meaning that vehicle monitoring is allowed in either driving mode, (“Example of operation mode switching processing operation in the autonomous driving vehicle 1 of the embodiment FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 that is the continuation of FIG. 7 show that in the automatic driving vehicle 1 of the embodiment, the switching conditions are monitored during traveling in the manual operation mode.”).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Masahiro, Yonggwon and Seo have the limitations of claim 1:
Seo further teaches:
wherein, even when the driver does not comply with the grip request, the permit state control unit permits the stoppage of steering wheel grip in the monitoring necessary state. (“the vehicle control device sends a warning to the driver to alert a driver of an accident when the handle grip is not detected within a predetermined first threshold time, The vehicle control apparatus can change the running mode of the vehicle to the autonomous running mode if the handle gripping is not detected within the set second threshold time.”), an alert regarding grip on the wheel may be sent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Masahiro to incorporate the teachings of Seo because Masahiro would be more efficient and better understood if it more clearly set forth that a driver may disengage from the steering wheel in auto mode as done in Seo . (“The vehicle control apparatus can change the traveling mode of the vehicle after issuing a warning to the driver when the autonomous mode is selected by the driver and the driver does not sense whether or not the driver grasps the handle within a preset time while the vehicle is running.”).
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of Masahiro, Yonggwon and Seo have the limitations of claim 24:
Seo further teaches:
wherein the grip determination unit permits the stoppage of steering wheel grip in the monitoring necessary state after the grip request is output by the request output unit. (“the vehicle control device sends a warning to the driver to alert a driver of an accident when the handle grip is not detected within a predetermined first threshold time, The vehicle control apparatus can change the running mode of the vehicle to the autonomous running mode if the handle gripping is not detected within the set second threshold time.”), an alert regarding grip on the wheel may be sent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to have modified Masahiro to incorporate the teachings of Seo because Masahiro would be more efficient and better understood if it more clearly set forth that a driver may disengage from the steering wheel in auto mode as done in Seo . (“The vehicle control apparatus can change the traveling mode of the vehicle after issuing a warning to the driver when the autonomous mode is selected by the driver and the driver does not sense whether or not the driver grasps the handle within a preset time while the vehicle is running.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 10, 13 – 22, 26, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended so as to place at least one claim into an independent form, and to otherwise place the claim(s) into an allowable condition. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independently, while the above mentioned claims may individually be disclosed by the prior art, the claim as a whole is not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use their separate limitations as a road map to combine them.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form 892.
Dong (US20210370985A1) An autonomous driving control method for an autonomous driving vehicle is provided. The method may include entering a control transfer standby state when an autonomous driving release button input is detected in an autonomous driving mode, determining whether a driver intervenes in the control transfer standby state, and when the driver is determined to intervene in the control transfer standby state, terminating the control transfer standby state to enter a manual driving mode.
Francesco (US20190121356A1) - A system includes an electro-dermal potential sensing system to sense electro-dermal potential of a person and configured to output an electro-dermal potential signal, as well as at least one physiological sensor to measure at least one physiological state and output at least one physiological signal. The system also includes a controller to receive the electro-dermal potential signal from the electro-dermal potential sensing system and the at least one physiological signal to determine a drowsiness state of the person.
Shinichi (US20210080949A1) - An authority transfer device is used for a vehicle having an autonomous driving mode in which driving operation is autonomously performed for a driver and a manual driving mode in which driving operation is manually performed by the driver using at least a steering wheel. The authority transfer device includes a controller configured, when switching from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode, to transfer a driving authority of the vehicle to the driver on condition that at least a grip of the driver on the steering wheel is detected. The controller notifies the driver that the driving authority will be transferred before the driving authority is transferred.
Changmok (US20170090475A1) - A driver monitoring method and apparatus is disclosed. The apparatus may control an activation of monitoring devices provided in a vehicle based on detecting a movement of a driver, which is received from a wearable device worn on the driver, and to determine whether the driver is in a normal driving state using information collected from the activated monitoring devices. A driver monitoring method may include determining a movement of a driver based on a wearable device, controlling an activation of monitoring devices provided in a vehicle based on the determining of the movement of the driver, collecting information from the monitoring devices, in response to the monitoring device being activated, and determining whether the driver is in a normal driving state in which the driver is able to drive the vehicle normally using the collected information.
McGill (US20190202464A1) - Vehicle systems and methods for controlling a vehicle to mitigate the effects of an incapacitated driver are disclosed. In one embodiment, a vehicle includes one or more sensors, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory memory modules communicatively coupled to the one or more processors. The memory modules store machine-readable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to receive one or more signals output by the one or more sensors and determine a driver of the vehicle is incapacitated based on the one or more signals output by the one or sensors. In response to determining the driver is incapacitated, the processors are caused to determine a specific type of incapacitation of the driver based on the one or more signals output by the one or more sensors. The processors may select an individual vehicle control profile based on the specific type of incapacitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW COBB whose telephone number is (571) 272-3850. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5, 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 call examiner Cobb as above, or 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, Peter Nolan, can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/MATTHEW COBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661