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
The applicant has argued that amendments made to the independent claims overcome the currently rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoncini (US 2021/0354704) in view of Narayanasamy (US 2021/0031780). Specifically, the applicant argues that Simoncini does not teach the new limitations because Simoncini does not predict future unsafe driving conditions. This argument is not persuasive as Simoncini, in Paragraphs [0039]-[0040], identifies patterns in operator behavior to identify operators that can be provided training materials to “reduce a rate of unsafe maneuvers” which is which represents a prediction of future unsafe driving maneuvers that can be avoided by implementation of said training materials.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 have been presented and examined in this action.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoncini (US 2021/0354704) in view of Narayanasamy (US 2021/0031780).
Claims 4-5, and 12-13 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoncini (US 2021/0354704) in view of Narayanasamy (US 2021/0031780) in view of Lockwood (US 2020/0183394).
Priority Date
The priority date of the application is 12/06/2023.
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.
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 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoncini (US 2021/0354704) in view of Narayanasamy (US 20210031780).
As per Claim 1:
Simoncini discloses the following limitations:
“A method comprising: determining a presence of an unsafe driving condition for a vehicle”
Simoncini Paragraph [0037] discloses classifying a vehicle maneuver as unsafe.
“evaluating the unsafe driving condition to generate one or more characteristics associated with the unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraph [0038] discloses generating a maneuver score for a maneuver performed in a specific situation. These situations represent characteristics of unsafe driving conditions (i.e. a vehicle maneuver performed to avoid an obstruction or another vehicle).
“determining one or more indicators for each of the one or more characteristics, wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more driver behaviors that lead to an occurrence of a future unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] discloses identifying a pattern of unsafe maneuvers by a particular operator which serve as indicators of future unsafe driving situations. The system further goes on to include providing training materials for identified drivers which further confirms that the system is identifying and predicting future unsafe driving conditions based on driver behaviors as the purpose of providing training materials is specifically to avoid said predicted future unsafe driving predictions. The reference identifies patterns in operator behavior to identify operators that can be provided training materials to “reduce a rate of unsafe maneuvers” which is which represents a prediction of future unsafe driving maneuvers that can be avoided by implementation of said training materials
“wherein the model patch configures the vehicle to detect the unsafe driving condition when a predetermined combination of the one or more indicators is present.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses recommending a software update to address unsafe driving maneuvers.
Simoncini does not disclose the following limitations that Narayanasamy teaches:
“and generating a model patch for the vehicle,”
Narayanasamy Paragraph [0044] discloses generating a software update to address autonomous vehicle behavior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini with the generation of a software update taught by Narayanasamy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by enacting changes based on recommendations.
With regards to Claim 2, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining that the vehicle did not detect the unsafe driving condition comprises determining that the vehicle did not detect the unsafe driving condition in a threshold interval of time.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses identifying a maneuver within a threshold period of time.
With regards to Claim 3, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the threshold interval of time comprises a time delay from determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses identifying a maneuver within a threshold period of time.
With regards to Claim 6, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the unsafe driving condition is associated with a first surrounding vehicle and a second surrounding vehicle, wherein the vehicle associates the unsafe driving condition with the second surrounding vehicle.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0011] discloses associating unsafe driving conditions with other vehicles.
With regards to Claim 7, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition for the vehicle is accomplished at a remote server.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0047] discloses detecting unsafe maneuvers using a cloud server.
With regards to Claim 8, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the model patch adds one or more thresholds associated with the one or more indicators.”
“Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses training a machine learning model (which updates corresponding to the "patch" of the claim) based on adding thredholds for determination of unsafe driving situations.”
As per Claim 9:
Simoncini discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle, comprising: a plurality of sensors; one or more processors; a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a presence of an unsafe driving condition for the vehicle”
Simoncini Paragraph [0037] discloses classifying a vehicle maneuver as unsafe with a vehicle equipped with sensors, a processor, and a memory.
“evaluate the unsafe driving condition to generate one or more characteristics associated with the unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraph [0038] discloses generating a maneuver score for a maneuver performed in a specific situation. These situations represent characteristics of unsafe driving conditions (i.e. a vehicle maneuver performed to avoid an obstruction or another vehicle).
“determine one or more indicators for each of the one or more characteristics, wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more driver behaviors that lead to an occurrence of a future unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] discloses identifying a pattern of unsafe maneuvers by a particular operator which serve as indicators of future unsafe driving situations. The system further goes on to include providing training materials for identified drivers which further confirms that the system is identifying and predicting future unsafe driving conditions based on driver behaviors as the purpose of providing training materials is specifically to avoid said predicted future unsafe driving predictions. The reference identifies patterns in operator behavior to identify operators that can be provided training materials to “reduce a rate of unsafe maneuvers” which is which represents a prediction of future unsafe driving maneuvers that can be avoided by implementation of said training materials
“wherein the model patch configures the remote server to detect the unsafe driving condition when a predetermined subset of the one or more indicators are present.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses recommending a software update to address unsafe driving maneuvers. Paragraph [0047] discloses detecting unsafe maneuvers using a cloud server.
Simoncini does not disclose the following limitations that Narayanasamy does disclose:
“and generating a model patch for the remote server,”
Narayanasamy Paragraph [0044] discloses generating a software update to address autonomous vehicle behavior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini with the generation of a software update disclosed by Narayanasamy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by enacting changes based on recommendations.
With regards to Claim 10, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining that the remote server did not detect the unsafe driving condition comprises determining that the remote server did not detect the unsafe driving condition in a threshold interval of time”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses identifying a maneuver within a threshold period of time.
With regards to Claim 11, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the threshold interval of time comprises a time delay from determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses identifying a maneuver within a threshold period of time.
With regards to Claim 14, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the unsafe driving condition is associated with a first surrounding vehicle and a second surrounding vehicle, wherein the remote server associates the unsafe driving condition with the second surrounding vehicle.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0011] discloses associating unsafe driving conditions with other vehicles.
With regards to Claim 15, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the model patch adds one or more thresholds associated with the one or more indicators.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses training a machine learning model (which updates corresponding to the "patch" of the claim) based on adding thresholds for determination of unsafe driving situations.
As per Claim 16:
Simoncini discloses the following limitations:
“A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a presence of an unsafe driving condition for a vehicle, the unsafe driving condition caused by a first subject vehicle”
Simoncini Paragraph [0037] discloses classifying a vehicle maneuver as unsafe.
“determine that the vehicle detected the unsafe driving condition but associated the unsafe driving condition with a second subject vehicle”
Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses associating an unsafe maneuver with another vehicle.
“evaluate the unsafe driving condition to generate one or more characteristics associated with the unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraph [0038] discloses generating a maneuver score for a maneuver performed in a specific situation. These situations represent characteristics of unsafe driving conditions (i.e. a vehicle maneuver performed to avoid an obstruction or another vehicle).
“determine one or more indicators for each of the one or more characteristics, wherein the one or more indicators comprise one or more driver behaviors that lead to an occurrence of a future unsafe driving condition”
Simoncini Paragraphs [0039]-[0040] discloses identifying a pattern of unsafe maneuvers by a particular operator which serve as indicators of future unsafe driving situations. The system further goes on to include providing training materials for identified drivers which further confirms that the system is identifying and predicting future unsafe driving conditions based on driver behaviors as the purpose of providing training materials is specifically to avoid said predicted future unsafe driving predictions. The reference identifies patterns in operator behavior to identify operators that can be provided training materials to “reduce a rate of unsafe maneuvers” which is which represents a prediction of future unsafe driving maneuvers that can be avoided by implementation of said training materials
“wherein the model patch configures the vehicle to associate the unsafe driving condition with the first subject vehicle when a predetermined subset of the one or more indicators are present”
Simoncini Paragraph [0039] discloses recommending a software update to address unsafe driving maneuvers.
Simoncini does not disclose the following limitations that Narayanasamy teaches:
“and generating a model patch for the vehicle,”
Narayanasamy Paragraph [0044] discloses generating a software update to address autonomous vehicle behavior.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini with the generation of a software update disclosed by Narayanasamy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by enacting changes based on recommendations.
With regards to Claim 17, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition for the vehicle is accomplished at a remote server.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0047] discloses detecting unsafe maneuvers using a cloud server
With regards to Claim 18, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the model patch comprises adding one or more thresholds associated with the one or more indicators.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses training a machine learning model (which updates corresponding to the "patch" of the claim) based on adding thresholds for determination of unsafe driving situations.
With regards to Claim 19, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 18 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to replace one or more existing thresholds with the added one or more thresholds.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses associating arbitrary threshold limitations and it would be therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace any initial thresholds with any other based on desired outcomes.
With regards to Claim 20, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the model patch configures the vehicle to associate the unsafe driving condition with the first subject vehicle when all of the one or more indicators are present.”
Simoncini Paragraph [0065] discloses associating an unsafe driving maneuver with the presence of indicators.
Claims 4-5, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simoncini (US 2021/0354704) in view of Narayanasamy (US 20210031780) in view of Lockwoord (US 2020/0183394).
With regards to Claim 4, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitation that Lockwood teaches:
“wherein determining that the vehicle did not detect the unsafe driving condition comprises determining that the vehicle did not detect the unsafe driving condition at a first confidence level.”
Lockwood Paragraph [0218] discloses associating confidence with detecting unsafe driving conditions (i.e. situations in which an operator needs to take over operation of a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy with the confidence levels disclosed by Lockwood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by reducing the level of false positives identified by the system.
With regards to Claim 5, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy in view of Lockwood discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition for the vehicle comprises determining a second confidence level, wherein a threshold difference between the first confidence level and the second confidence level indicates that the vehicle did not detect the unsafe driving condition.”
Lockwood Paragraph [0218] associates the rate of change of a confidence level (i.e. the difference of confidence thresholds over time) with identification of unsafe driving conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy with the confidence levels disclosed by Lockwood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by reducing the level of false positives identified by the system.
With regards to Claim 12, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitation that Lockwood teaches:
“wherein determining that the remote server did not detect the unsafe driving condition comprises determining that the remote server did not detect the unsafe driving condition at a first confidence level.”
Lockwood Paragraph [0218] discloses associating confidence with detecting unsafe driving conditions (i.e. situations in which an operator needs to take over operation of a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy with the confidence levels disclosed by Lockwood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by reducing the level of false positives identified by the system.
With regards to Claim 13, Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy in view of Lockwood discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein determining the presence of the unsafe driving condition comprises determining a second confidence level, wherein a threshold difference between the first confidence level and the second confidence level indicates that the remote server did not detect the unsafe driving condition.”
Lockwood Paragraph [0218] associates the rate of change o fa confidence level (i.e. the difference of confidence thresholds over time) with identification of unsafe driving conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Simoncini in view of Narayanasamy with the confidence levels disclosed by Lockwood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by reducing the level of false positives identified by the system.
Relevant References
Herbach (US 8,849,494)
Related to review of autonomous vehicle control behaviors.
Dougherty (US 2016/0163198)
Related to identification of near-miss situations involving autonomous vehicles.
Konrady (US 10,599,155)
Related to identifying and monitoring risk with the operation of autonomous vehicles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights