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 .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-9 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba (US 2022/0009524 A1, IDS) in view of Goto et al. (“Goto”, US 20190126942 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 1 & 9, Oba discloses a notification system comprising: a mobile terminal (Figs. 5-7, 21-22: information terminal 50) configured to receive notification information for a driver of a vehicle and notify the driver of the notification information (Figs. 5-7, with regard to the manual driving request notification). As per the limitation a processor. Goto discloses, in ¶58; Fig. 3, the concept of configuring a processing device (HCU 11) with a CPU (corresponding to a processor). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of configuring a processing device (HCU 11) with a CPU, with the motivation to enhance the processing features of the system. the processor configured to: generate the notification information (Oba: ¶¶126-129) (¶61); transmit the notification information to the mobile terminal (Oba: ¶¶156-164; Fig. 5-7) (¶63; Figs. 1 &3). As per the limitation cause the mobile terminal to notify the driver of the notification information until an ending condition for ending notification is satisfied. Oba discloses, in ¶¶97, 318, receiving user input for cancelling manual driving takeover. Goto discloses, in ¶72; Fig. 4, the concept of ending an operation necessity notification process based end timing condition. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of ending an operation necessity notification process based end timing condition, with the motivation to enhance the notification control features of the system. As per the limitation wherein the processor is configured to change the ending condition depending on urgency of the notification information. Goto discloses, in Fig. 11, using an end timing notification ending process. Goto further ¶¶168-170 with reference to Fig. 18, the concept of changing a notification process based on end timing condition to a bad weather notification that overrides the end timing condition based on priority. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of changing a notification process based on end timing condition to a bad weather notification that overrides the end timing condition based on priority, with the motivation to enhance the notification control features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to determine the urgency based on whether the notification information requires a response from the driver (Oba discloses, in ¶201-202, evaluating response time of the driver to determine dozing states of the driver, and based on the response evaluation indicating that the driver is unable to perform manual operation the vehicle decelerates . Jung discloses, on page 4: ¶5 requesting a response to a notification and subsequently evaluating a time duration from the output of the notification and determining a unconscious condition of the driver). 3) Regarding claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to determine the urgency based on a hazard level of an event (Okajima: page 9: ¶¶5-6 with regard to the other vehicle monitoring based on the urgency information). 4) Regarding claim 7, further comprising a notification device installed in the vehicle (Oba: Fig. 2: notification unit 15), wherein the processor is configured to: transmit the notification information to the notification device (Oba: Fig. 2); and cause the notification device to end notification to the driver when the ending condition is satisfied (Goto: Fig. 4: S6). 5) Regarding claim 8, Oba and Goto with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claim 1 teach a vehicle control device (Oba: Fig. 1: data processing unit 11) comprising a processor (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 9) configured to: acquire notification information to be transmitted to a mobile terminal of a driver of a vehicle (Oba: ¶¶126-127); and cause the mobile terminal to notify the driver of the notification information until an ending condition for ending notification is satisfied (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 9), wherein the processor is configured to change the ending condition depending on urgency of the notification information (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 9).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba in view of Goto, and in further view of Roy et al. (“Roy”, US 2015/0191178 A1, on the record) and Jung et al. (KR 102244740 B1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 5 the notification system according to claim 1, wherein when the urgency is equal to or higher than a certain level. Roy discloses, in ¶65, the concept of determining notification urgency above threshold levels to provide notification based on importance of the notifications. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining notification urgency above threshold levels to provide notification based on importance of the notifications, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system. As per the limitation the ending condition includes depression of a confirmation button displayed on a display device of the mobile terminal by the driver. In the art of providing confirmation for received notifications, Jung discloses, on page 4: ¶5, the concept of cancelling a notification once a driver has confirmed a cancellation via a user interface regarding a provided notification. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of cancelling a notification once a driver has confirmed a cancellation via a user interface regarding a provided notification, with the motivation to enhance the notification control features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 & 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights