DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This action is NON-FINAL.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2, 6, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al. (US 20190129417 A1; hereinafter Noto) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 20240112077 A1; hereinafter Agrawal).
Regarding claim 1,
Noto teaches:
A control device for a vehicle, comprising
a processor and memory configured to:
(Noto – [0046] “The ECU 29 includes a microcomputer having a CPU 31 and a semiconductor memory such as RAM, ROM, or flash memory (hereinafter, memory 32).”)
perform automated driving for automatically performing driving operations of the vehicle;
(Noto – [0023] “A driving control system 1 is a system installed in a vehicle such as an automobile to realize automated driving of the vehicle. Unless otherwise specified, automated driving as used in the following description indicates driving control that automatically carries out driving control such as vehicle speed control, braking control, steering control, and the like so as to enable navigation without requiring driver's operation.”)
make a driver practice taking back driving from automated driving and resuming manual driving, where at least part of the driving tasks are performed by the driver, during automated driving and calculate a proficiency level of taking back driving based on one or both of a time period required for taking back driving when practicing taking back driving and action of the driver in the period for taking back driving;
(Noto – [0057] “The authority transfer preparation is a preparation (training) of stopping at least a part of the automated driving and transferring the driving authority to the driver when automated driving is being executed under the control of the traveling control section 41d and the propriety decision section 41b has determined that automated driving is possible.” [0058] “The proficiency acquisition section 43 acquires the proficiency, that is, the degree of proficiency of the authority transfer preparation. The proficiency is represented by a value that is added or subtracted by the driver performing the authority transfer preparation. “ [0084] “In S14, the CPU 31 determines whether or not the authority transfer time t is shorter than an increase evaluation time TL. The increase evaluation time TL is a time period serving as a criterion for evaluation that increases the proficiency. “)
identify a current driving scene based on surrounding data showing a state of the surroundings of the vehicle; and
(Noto – [0030] “The above-described camera 11, the millimeter wave radar 12, the laser radar 13, the road-vehicle communication device 14, and the inter-vehicle communication device 15 function as an information acquisition section that acquires information on the outside of the vehicle. The information on the outside of the vehicle acquired by the information acquisition section will be hereinafter also simply referred to as surrounding environment information.”)
practice taking back driving by a frequency in accordance with the proficiency level calculated when last practicing taking back driving in the same driving scene as the present,
(Noto – [0061] “In addition, the frequency of preparation control may be changed depending the proficiency. For example, it is possible to set the frequency of preparation control so that the frequency increases as the proficiency decreases, and the frequency decreases as the proficiency increases. Further, the conditions of the surrounding environment information for determining that the situation is suitable for the preparation control at the situation determining section 42 may be changed based on the proficiency.”)
Noto does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Agrawal teaches:
wherein the proficiency level is quantified for each driving scene.
(Agrawal –[0020] “Route experience module 106 is configured to identify a type of driving context (or scenario) that is expected based on a forthcoming route and generate an experience score based on the driver's previous experience within the identified context. In an example, the forthcoming route can be predicted based on historical driving information retrieved from knowledge corpus 102… Route experience module 106 uses knowledge corpus 102 and the current driving conditions (e.g., rain, snow, wind, fog, day/night, road type, traffic, etc.) to generate a scoring for the level of experience the driver has for the forthcoming predicted driving scenario. In this example, route experience module 106 generates a low driving experience score (e.g., 2 out of 10) for the new driver because she doesn't have experience in wet conditions along the route, but she has driven the route many times.”)
Agrawal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of monitoring the experience level of a driver. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noto with Agrawal to include creating an experience score for each driving scenario in order to provide training to driving so that the driver will be able to navigate the upcoming driving context safely (Agrawal, para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to reduce the frequency as the proficiency level increases.
(Noto – [0061] “In addition, the frequency of preparation control may be changed depending the proficiency. For example, it is possible to set the frequency of preparation control so that the frequency increases as the proficiency decreases, and the frequency decreases as the proficiency increases.”)
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to raise the proficiency level as the time period required for taking back driving decreases.
(Noto – [0084] “In S14, the CPU 31 determines whether or not the authority transfer time t is shorter than an increase evaluation time TL. The increase evaluation time TL is a time period serving as a criterion for evaluation that increases the proficiency.”)
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to:
identify a second task which the driver is performing during automated driving based on driver data showing the state of the driver; and
(Noto – [0033] “The driver state sensor group 18 includes a plurality of sensors for outputting information in accordance with a state of the driver other than driving operation. More specifically, the driver state sensor group 18 includes a plurality of sensors for detecting a position and movement of driver's body parts such as a head, a body, an arm, and a foot, a driver's health condition, driver's awareness, line of sight, and the like.” [0141] “In S76, the CPU 31 determines whether or not the driver is executing a low-burden secondary task. When it is determined that the driver is executing a low-burden secondary task, the processing proceeds to S74.” [0142] “In S77, the CPU 31 determines whether or not the driver is executing a high-burden secondary task. When it is determined that the driver is executing a high-burden secondary task, the processing proceeds to S74.”)
separately practice taking back driving by a frequency corresponding to the proficiency level calculated at the time of most recently practicing taking back driving when performing the same second task as the present.
(Noto – [0143] “That is, in this execution determination processing, if the proficiency is low, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a secondary task is not being executed. If the proficiency is medium, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a low-burden secondary task is being executed. If the proficiency is high, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a high-burden secondary task is being executed. Therefore, the higher the skill of the driver predicted from the proficiency, the more difficult a situation for quick driving operation the authority transfer preparation can be started in.” [0145] “Since the driving control system 1 executes the preparation control when a secondary task depending on the proficiency is being executed, the driving control system 1 can execute the preparation (training) under an appropriate burden matching with the skill of the driver.”)
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 recites a non-transitory computer recording medium comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Additionally, Noto further teaches A nontransitory computer recording medium including a computer program for a control device for a vehicle, the nontransitory computer recording medium including a computer program for making the control device:
(Noto – [0046] “The ECU 29 includes a microcomputer having a CPU 31 and a semiconductor memory such as RAM, ROM, or flash memory (hereinafter, memory 32). The various functions of the ECU 29 are realized by the CPU 31 executing a program stored in a non-transitory tangible recording medium. In this example, the memory 32 corresponds to the non-transitory tangible recording medium storing a program. Further, a method corresponding to a program is executed by execution of the program. The ECU 29 may include one or a plurality of microcomputers.”)
Claims 3-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al. (US 20190129417 A1; hereinafter Noto) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 20240112077 A1; hereinafter Agrawal) and in further view of Lundsgaard (US 20180237027 A1; hereinafter Lundsgaard).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to:
set a practice interval based on the proficiency level calculated when last practicing taking back driving at the same driving scene as the present; and
(Noto – [0061] “In addition, the frequency of preparation control may be changed depending the proficiency. For example, it is possible to set the frequency of preparation control so that the frequency increases as the proficiency decreases, and the frequency decreases as the proficiency increases.”)
The combination of Noto and Agrawal does not explicitly disclose the following, however, Lundsgaard teaches:
practice taking back driving if an elapsed time from when last practicing taking back driving at the same driving scene as the present is greater than or equal to the practice interval.
(Lundsgaard – [0057] “In some aspects, the computing device may initiate a test based on the current time. As previously explained, the computing device may store a time, time frame, and/or frequency for each test in a database (e.g., database 152). The computing device (e.g., a vehicle 110 computer) may compare the current time to the time, time frame, and/or frequency stored in the database. If the current time corresponds to the time, time frame, and/or frequency stored in the database (e.g., if the current time is within a threshold distance from the stored time, is within the time frame, etc.), the computing device may determine to initiate a driving test.”)
Lundsgaard is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining the proficiency of a driver during a practice session. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include determining a practice interval in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Noto, Agrawal, and Lundsgaard teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to lengthen the practice interval as the proficiency level increases.
(Noto – [0061] “In addition, the frequency of preparation control may be changed depending the proficiency. For example, it is possible to set the frequency of preparation control so that the frequency increases as the proficiency decreases, and the frequency decreases as the proficiency increases.”
Examiner note: decreasing the frequency corresponds to lengthening the practice interval because there would be a longer time between each practice.)
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Noto and Agrawal does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however, Lundsgaard teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to compare actions of the driver in the period for taking back driving with evaluation items set for each driving scene and raise the proficiency level as a number of actions which match the evaluation items increases.
(Lundsgaard – [0075] In some aspects, each type of maneuver and/or test may be associated with a plurality of scores indicative of the actions taken by the driver to complete the maneuver. For example, each test may include a plurality of checklist items. The computing device may factor, in to the driving score, the actions taken by the driver to complete the maneuver. For example, assume again that the test was a test to switch one lane over. The checklist items for this test may include (1) use of the correct turn signal before crossing the lane marking, (2) the driver checking the side-view mirror, (3) the driver checking a blind spot (if applicable), (4) use of the correct turn signal while crossing the lane marking, and (5) turning off the turn signal once the vehicle is completely in the new lane. Each item on the checklist may contribute to the driver score. For example, if the driver performed all five items during the test, the driver may receive a score of 5 for the test (e.g., 1 for each item). If the driver performed four out of five items during the test, the driver may receive a score of 4, and so on. In these example, each item is weighted the same (e.g., 1).”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include determine a driver score based on comparing the actions taken by the driver with a checklist in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Noto, Agrawal, and Lundsgaard teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Lundsgaard further teaches:
wherein the evaluation items include any presence of safety check operations set in advance for each driving scene and timing of performance.
(Lundsgaard – [0075] In some aspects, each type of maneuver and/or test may be associated with a plurality of scores indicative of the actions taken by the driver to complete the maneuver. For example, each test may include a plurality of checklist items. The computing device may factor, in to the driving score, the actions taken by the driver to complete the maneuver. For example, assume again that the test was a test to switch one lane over. The checklist items for this test may include (1) use of the correct turn signal before crossing the lane marking, (2) the driver checking the side-view mirror, (3) the driver checking a blind spot (if applicable), (4) use of the correct turn signal while crossing the lane marking, and (5) turning off the turn signal once the vehicle is completely in the new lane. Each item on the checklist may contribute to the driver score. For example, if the driver performed all five items during the test, the driver may receive a score of 5 for the test (e.g., 1 for each item). If the driver performed four out of five items during the test, the driver may receive a score of 4, and so on. In these example, each item is weighted the same (e.g., 1).”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include determine a driver score based on comparing the actions taken by the driver with a checklist in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Noto, Agrawal, and Lundsgaard teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Lundsgaard further teaches:
wherein evaluation items include an amount of operation in a driving operation in the period for taking back driving not exceeding the allowable amount set in advance for each driving scene.
(Lundsgaard – [0075] “In some aspects, each type of maneuver and/or test may be associated with a plurality of scores indicative of the actions taken by the driver to complete the maneuver… For example, assume that the checklist in the above example includes the angle (e.g., maximum angle) of the steering wheel during the lane change. If the driver was between angle A and angle B, the driver may receive a score of 0.5 for this item. If the driver was between angle B and angle C, the driver may receive a score of 1 for this item. If the driver was between angle C and angle D, the driver may receive a score of 1.5, and so on.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include determine a driver score based on comparing the actions taken by the driver with a checklist in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Noto further teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to:
set the practice interval based on the proficiency level calculated at the time of most recently practicing taking back driving when performing the same second task as the present; and
(Noto – [0061] “In addition, the frequency of preparation control may be changed depending the proficiency. For example, it is possible to set the frequency of preparation control so that the frequency increases as the proficiency decreases, and the frequency decreases as the proficiency increases.” [0143] “That is, in this execution determination processing, if the proficiency is low, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a secondary task is not being executed. If the proficiency is medium, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a low-burden secondary task is being executed. If the proficiency is high, the CPU 31 sets the execution flag when a high-burden secondary task is being executed. Therefore, the higher the skill of the driver predicted from the proficiency, the more difficult a situation for quick driving operation the authority transfer preparation can be started in.”)
The combination of Noto and Agrawal does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Lundsgaard teaches:
separately practice taking back driving if the elapsed time from most recently practicing taking back driving when performing the same second task as the present is greater than or equal to the practice interval.
(Lundsgaard – [0057] “In some aspects, the computing device may initiate a test based on the current time. As previously explained, the computing device may store a time, time frame, and/or frequency for each test in a database (e.g., database 152). The computing device (e.g., a vehicle 110 computer) may compare the current time to the time, time frame, and/or frequency stored in the database. If the current time corresponds to the time, time frame, and/or frequency stored in the database (e.g., if the current time is within a threshold distance from the stored time, is within the time frame, etc.), the computing device may determine to initiate a driving test.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include determining a practice interval in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Noto and Agrawal does not explicitly teach the following limitation, however, Lundsgaard teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to notify the driver of an evaluation of practicing taking back driving through an output device making notifications to the driver of the vehicle when finishing practicing taking back driving.
(Lundsgaard – [0073] “In some aspects, the computing device may provide feedback to the driver after the test. Examples of feedback to driver may include an indication that the test is complete, that data for the test was recorded, how the driver responded (e.g., as compared to nationally or another population group), or any other type of feedback… In some aspects, the driver may receive a detailed test report. The computing device may provide feedback to drivers on their abilities to react to certain situations, and may focus on improving the driver's reaction in situations where the user might have been slow to respond. The computing device may also provide feedback to maintain the driver's skills in areas where the driver demonstrated a high level of skill.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Lundsgaard to include displaying feedback after the test in complete in order to ensure the driver will react appropriately and reduce the risk of a vehicle accident (Lundsgaard, para. [0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noto et al. (US 20190129417 A1; hereinafter Noto) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 20240112077 A1; hereinafter Agrawal) and in further view of Pilutti et al. (US 20180196428 A1; hereinafter Pilutti).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Noto and Agrawal teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Noto and Agrawal does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Pilutti teaches:
wherein the a processor and memory is configured to:
perform correction so as to lower the proficiency level based on the elapsed time from when last practicing taking back driving at the same driving scene as the present; and
increase an amount of correction gradually or in stages as the elapsed time becomes longer.
(Pilutti – [0023] “The driver is to receive training when, according to the profile, the driver either (a) has not received the training before or (b) the autonomy unit 106 has detected misuse of the activate semi-autonomous feature since the last time the training was presented. In some examples, the feature tracker 112 permits the driver to skip the training. In some such examples, after skipping the training a threshold number of times, the feature tracker 112 does not permit the driver to skip the training. In some such examples, the feature tracker 112 instructs the autonomy unit 106 not to activate the semi-autonomous feature until the training has been presented to the driver. Alternatively or additionally, in some examples, the feature tracker 112 determines, after the training has been skipped, whether the semi-autonomous feature corresponding to the skipped training is subsequently misused by the driver.”)
Pilutti is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of training a driver to control an autonomous vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Noto and Agrawal with Pilutti to include determining that a driver requires training based on the amount of time since the last training in order to ensure the driver is knowledgeable about the limitations of a vehicle feature and possible warnings or alerts (Pilutti, para. [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Xiao (US 20230219600 A1) discloses three classified takeover capability levels: the level 1, the level 2, and the level 3, more or fewer takeover capability levels may be set depending on an actual application scenario.
Madison (US 11164479 B1) discloses a virtual reality driving simulation may be determined based on one or more input parameters. The virtual reality driving simulation may include: i) an autonomous vehicle for executing a transition from a first level of vehicle control to a second level of vehicle control, and (ii) a driving scenario for the user to practice situational awareness recovery in response to the transition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights