DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 10/28/2025.
The Applicant, via the claim amendments filed, overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections set forth in the previous Office Action. The Examiner, therefore, withdraws said rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urmson et al. U.S. Patent 8,965,621B1 (hereinafter, Urmson), in view of Stankoulov U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0174485A1 (hereinafter, Stankoulov).
Regarding Claim 1, Urmson describes a computer-implemented (computer implemented vehicle system, Urmson, Col. 3 Lines 11-14) method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (processor with stored instructions to perform operations, Urmson, Col. 3 Line 11 to Col. 4 Line 27) comprising:
-receiving a request to initialize a driver profile of a target driver for a vehicle (instruction to build a driver profile for a vehicle, wherein the driver profile develops driving pattern envelope (i.e., filters) to approximate a driving action of the target driver, Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 4 and Col. 11 Lines 28-46), …
-initializing the driver profile of the target driver (initializing, starting, or also known as loading the driver profile, Urmson, Col. 12 Lines 55-67);
-obtaining sensor data indicating a context of the vehicle, the context triggering a vehicle decision to perform a vehicle action; based on the vehicle decision to perform the vehicle action (obtaining sensor data indicating the context of the vehicle (i.e., vehicle operations) and perform a vehicle action based on the sensor data (e.g., identify a driver and operate the vehicle in autonomous mode based on the driving pattern envelope and sensor information), Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10, Col. 11 Lines 28-46, and Col. 2 Lines 6-45),
-identifying a filter of the plurality of filters of the driver profile that corresponds to the vehicle action (filters (i.e., driving envelope and profile) correspond to vehicle actions (e.g., the speed for which the vehicle operates), Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 28-46 and Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10);
-applying the filter of the driver profile … to generate an adjusted action that approximates the driving action of the target driver (applying a filter to the driver profile (e.g., weighting function based on patterns) to generate an adjusted action that approximates the driving style of the driver, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 28-46);
-applying a safety filter to the adjusted action to generate a safety adjusted action (applying a safety filter (e.g., speed limit for age group of drivers) which adjust the vehicle for safety purposes, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 28-46); and
-instructing the vehicle to perform the vehicle decision including the safety adjusted action (having the vehicle perform the adjusted safety action, Urmson, Col. Lines 28-46).
Urmson does not specifically disclose the method to include that the driver profile including a plurality of filters, each filter of the plurality of filters being a mathematical representation configured to approximate a driving action of the target driver … mathematically modify the vehicle action.
Stankoulov discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Stankoulov describes the use of filters (e.g., mathematical filters such as averages) to approximate a driving action of a driver when trying to generate a driver profile (Stankoulov, Paragraphs 0060, 0164-0165, 0189-0191, and 0217-0219 and Figures 1, 2, 4, 7, and 13). Moreover, Stankoulov describes modifying the parameters of the vehicle (i.e., vehicle action, such as speed, acceleration, and braking) based on the determined profile (Stankoulov, Paragraphs 0167-0168).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Urmson to include that the driver profile including a plurality of filters, each filter of the plurality of filters being a mathematical representation configured to approximate a driving action of the target driver … mathematically modify the vehicle action, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Stankoulov.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the driver profile can help in better determining driving behavior during operation of the vehicle (Stankoulov, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding Claim 2, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 1, wherein the driver profile is stored in a corpus of driver profiles (storing driver profiles, Urmson, Col. 12 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 3, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 2, wherein the corpus of driver profiles comprises one or more aggregate driver profiles each approximating a demographic driving style (driving profiles can be based on an aggregate of driver profiles, based in part from demographic driving styles (e.g., age), Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 40-46 and Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise:
-receiving driving data, the driving data including a plurality of driving actions (obtaining sensor data indicating the context of the vehicle (i.e., vehicle operations), Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10, Col. 11 Lines 28-46, and Col. 2 Lines 6-45);
-for each driving action of the plurality of driving actions: deriving a filter from the driving action (driver profile develops driving pattern envelope (i.e., filters) from input data, Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 4 and Col. 11 Lines 28-46); and
-associating one or more of vehicle parameters, vehicle environment, or vehicle positioning with the derived filter (associating one or more vehicle parameters (e.g., vehicle acceleration) based on the driver, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 1-10);
-generating a new driver profile including the plurality of derived filters (generating driver profile from input data, which includes the derived filters, Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 4 and Col. 11 Lines 1-10 and 28-46);
-and storing the new driver profile in the corpus of driver profiles (storing driver profiles, Urmson, Col. 12 Lines 47-54).
Regarding Claim 5, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 4, wherein the plurality of driving actions includes one or more of steering, throttle, or braking (driving actions includes throttle and steering, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 6, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 1, wherein each filter of the plurality of filters is associated with a set of driving actions of the target driver (filters (i.e., driving envelope and profile) correspond to driving actions of the target driver, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 1-10 and 28-46 and Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 1, wherein identifying the filter of the plurality of filters of the driver profile that corresponds to the action is based on a driver context associated with the filter, the driver context corresponding to the context of the vehicle (filters (i.e., driving envelope and profile) correspond to driving actions and context of the target driver, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 1-10 and 28-46 and Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 1, wherein applying the safety filter to the adjusted action to generate the safety adjusted action comprises: determining that the adjusted action that approximates the driving action of the target driver does not exceed a safe driving threshold; and applying a null filter to the adjusted action (applying a safety filter (e.g., speed limit for age group of drivers) which adjust the vehicle for safety purposes should the speed exceed, however, not applying any action (i.e., reducing speed) if the speed of the vehicle is below said threshold, Urmson, Col. 11 Lines 28-46).
Regarding Claim 10, Urmson, as modified, describes the method of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: obtaining additional sensor data indicating a subsequent context of the vehicle, the subsequent context triggering a subsequent vehicle decision to perform an additional vehicle action (obtaining sensor data indicating the context of the vehicle (i.e., vehicle operations) and perform a vehicle action based on the sensor data (e.g., identify a driver and operate the vehicle in autonomous mode based on the driving pattern envelope and sensor information), Urmson, Col. 12 Line 47 to Col. 13 Line 10, Col. 11 Lines 28-46, and Col. 2 Lines 6-45); determining that the plurality of filters of the driver profile does not include a filter that corresponds to the subsequent vehicle action; and instructing the vehicle to perform the subsequent vehicle decision without modifying the subsequent vehicle action (vehicle can also perform an action (e.g., avoid an obstacle) without said action corresponding to a filter (e.g., speed), Urmson, Col. 6 Lines 34-37).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urmson et al. U.S. Patent 8,965,621 (hereinafter, Urmson), Stankoulov U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0174485A1 (hereinafter, Stankoulov), in further view of Turitz et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2015/0228129 (hereinafter, Turitz).
Regarding Claim 8, Urmson describes the method of Claim 1.
Urmson does not specifically disclose the method to include when applying the safety filter to the adjusted action to generate the safety adjusted action comprises: determining that the adjusted action that approximates the driving action of the target driver exceeds a safe driving threshold; and generating, for output to a passenger of the vehicle, a notification indicating that that the driving action of the target driver exceeds the safe driving threshold.
Turitz discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Turitz describes generating a notification when a driver exceeds a safe driving threshold (e.g., “you braked excessively when you came to a stop”) (Turitz, Paragraph 0074).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Urmson to include when applying the safety filter to the adjusted action to generate the safety adjusted action comprises: determining that the adjusted action that approximates the driving action of the target driver exceeds a safe driving threshold; and generating, for output to a passenger of the vehicle, a notification indicating that that the driving action of the target driver exceeds the safe driving threshold, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Turitz.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because providing feedback to the driver regarding exceeding thresholds, allows for safer operation of the vehicle (Turitz, Paragraphs 0074-0075).
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667