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 Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
In regards to the applicants remarks regarding the drawing objections, the examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection.
In regards to the applicants remarks regarding the 101 Rejection has been overcome, the examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection.
In regards to the applicants remarks that Katz does not explicitly teach the current amended claim language, the examiner agrees and conducted further search. The examiner found that Goldman-Shenhar teaches compare the frequency with a predetermined limit value ([0115] “a gaze is registered if a gaze frequency exceeds a certain threshold.”) indicating a lack of confidence([0130] “a driver that is having a new experience and is not calm (e.g., as evidenced by a gaze)” is understood to be the same as the claimed indicating lack of confidence in light of instant specifications [0029]) in the automated driving ([0134] “Using an automatic cruise control (ACC) system 20”) by the person sitting on the driver's seat, ([0130] “a driver”) and the information output device is configured to output a predetermined item of personalized information ([0130] “adjusting the default communication to include more frequent instructions or general messages.” Is understood to be the same as personalized information as it is adjusted for the current situation based on the driver’s gaze frequency which indicates a lack of confidence in the automated systems) as part of a confidence-reassuring communication ([0130] “includes less frequent instructions (e.g., the default directions) and/or limiting messages to only important alerts (e.g., accidents, hazards, changes in traffic).” And [0135] “Alternatively, the information 68 includes general information such as “I am working properly, I am trying to reach your set speed”.”)
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 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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz et al. (US20220203996, hereinafter “Katz”) and in view of Goldman-Shenhar et al. (US20160116977, hereinafter “Goldman-Shenhar”)
Claim 11. (Currently Amended) Katz teaches An automated motor vehicle, ([0079] “vehicle may include a self-driving vehicle, autonomous vehicle,”) comprising:
a sensor device configured to continuously determine a viewing direction of a person ([0085] “one or more sensors may detect the user's behaviors, activities, actions, or level of attentiveness and correlate the detected behaviors, activities, actions, or level of attentiveness to the user's gaze direction or change in gaze direction.”) sitting on a driver's seat during automated driving of the motor vehicle; ([0091] “Data from sensors may be associated with…driver,”) and
a control device connected to the sensor device ([0106] “processor may be configured to receive information from one or more sensors,” and [0095] “a processor may be connected to or integrated within a sensor via one or more wired or wireless communication links, and may receive data from the sensor such as images, or any data capable of being collected by the sensor,”) and configured to, during the automated driving:
determine a frequency of a change in the viewing direction ([0108] “detecting that the driver's gaze has shifted towards an object for a period of time” is understood to be the same as the claimed frequency of a change in the viewing direction in light of instant specifications [0050]) on the basis of the viewing direction determined by the sensor device,
and if the frequency is greater than the predetermined limit value, ([0108] “period of time greater than a predetermined threshold.”) to output a control signal to an information output device connected to the control device; ([0108] “processor may generate a command or message in response to any of the detected or predicted scenarios or events discussed above.” Is understood to be the same as the claimed control signal in light of instant specifications [0052])
and the information output device is configured to output a predetermined item of information as part of a communication ([0108] “the processor may be configured to generate an audible or visual message”) to the person sitting on the driver's seat during the automated driving and in response to receiving the control signal. ([0108] “after detecting that the driver's gaze has shifted towards an object for a period of time greater than a predetermined threshold….alert the driver”)
Katz does not explicitly teach compare the frequency with a predetermined limit value indicating a lack of confidence in the automated driving by the person sitting on the driver's seat, and the information output device is configured to output a predetermined item of personalized information as part of a confidence-reassuring communication
Goldman-Shenhar teaches compare the frequency with a predetermined limit value ([0115] “a gaze is registered if a gaze frequency exceeds a certain threshold.”) indicating a lack of confidence ([0130] “a driver that is having a new experience and is not calm (e.g., as evidenced by a gaze)” is understood to be the same as the claimed indicating lack of confidence in light of instant specifications [0029]) in the automated driving ([0134] “Using an automatic cruise control (ACC) system 20”) by the person sitting on the driver's seat, ([0130] “a driver”) and the information output device is configured to output a predetermined item of personalized information ([0130] “adjusting the default communication to include more frequent instructions or general messages.” Is understood to be the same as personalized information as it is adjusted for the current situation based on the driver’s gaze frequency which indicates a lack of confidence in the automated systems) as part of a confidence-reassuring communication ([0130] “includes less frequent instructions (e.g., the default directions) and/or limiting messages to only important alerts (e.g., accidents, hazards, changes in traffic).” And [0135] “Alternatively, the information 68 includes general information such as “I am working properly, I am trying to reach your set speed”.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katz to have comparing a frequency with a predetermined threshold indicating a lack of confidence in automated driving by the driveras taught by Goldman-Shenhar to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to (Goldman-Shenhar [0052]“improve the accuracy of the gaze detection device 90.”)
Claim 12. (Currently Amended) Katz and Goldman-Shenhar teach The automated motor vehicle of claim 11,
Katz teaches wherein the information output device is configured to output the communication auditively, visually and/or haptically. ([0108] “The message or command generated may be audible or visual,”)
Claim 13. (Currently Amended) Katz and Goldman-Shenhar teach The automated motor vehicle of claim 11,
Katz teaches wherein the control device is configured to output the control signal to the information output device on the basis of data received from the motor vehicle, which relate to at least one item of personalized information concerning the person sitting on the driver's seat. ([0108] “generate an audible or visual message after detecting that the driver's gaze has shifted towards an object” is understood to be the same as the claimed personalized information because the information is delivered based on the driver’s gaze)
Claim 14. (Currently Amended) Katz and Goldman-Shenhar teach The automated motor vehicle of claim 13,
Katz teaches wherein the at least one item of personalized information ([0109] “the message or command generated may indicate the detected or forecasted behavior of the user, including, for example, data associated with a gaze direction of the user or attention parameters of the user.”) comprises information concerning a gender and/or a name of the person sitting on the driver's seat. ([0035] “reports the driver's identity, demographics” [0054]
Claim 15. (Previously Presented) Katz and Goldman-Shenhar teach The automated motor vehicle of claim 11,
Katz teaches wherein control device outputs the control signal to the information output device only if the frequency of the change in the viewing direction is greater than the predetermined limit value for longer than a predetermined length of time. ([0108] “processor may be configured to generate an audible or visual message after detecting that the driver's gaze has shifted towards an object for a period of time greater than a predetermined threshold.”)
Claim 16. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 11 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 17. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 12 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 18. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 13 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 19. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 14 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 20. (Currently Amended) The method herein has been executed and performed by the system of claim 15 and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Kusafuka US20210339628 teaches determining a frequency of change of eye position is greater than a threshold
Novelli US20210082371 teaches determining if the driver looks away from a region for greater than a length of time threshold
Murakami US20200130578 teaches detecting when a gaze is outside a portion for greater than a predetermined threshold value
Amit US20140099623 teaches detecting if a user has their gaze fixated on an object for greater than three seconds
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 OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/OWAIS IQBAL MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights