DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Applicant argues the original claim(s) 1 is/are allowable over Hara et al. (US-20210016804-A1). Applicant continues, in Hara, the touch request in S106 is not made based on the warning state being satisfied. Rather, S106 occurs after the warning state is not satisfied and the warning is canceled.
4. However, Applicant is reminded while the flowchart of Fig. 3 of Hara is used for the rejection of claim 1, the intermediate steps of $103-$105 were not used for the rejection. Accordingly the warning that Applicant relies upon for arguing the rejection, is irrelevant. Applicant’s claimed predetermined warning condition and notifying the driver of a warning were NOT interpreted as equivalent of the steps $103-$105. Hara teaches the driving assistance system 40 is mounted in a vehicle, capable of driving that lets a driver take his or her hands off the steering wheel (hands-off driving). As an example of such driving, assume driving at about level 2 or level 3 is specified by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). While traveling in a vehicle, the driver may be in a state unsuitable for driving the vehicle. Examples of such an unsuitable state include driver's states of dozing off and being distracted without paying attention to the road ahead ([0029-0030], Fig. 1).
5. For teaching the limitation of determine whether or not a situation around a vehicle or a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition in a case where a driving control of the vehicle is executed without the driver holding a steering wheel, Examiner cited the following paragraph of Hara in the previous Office Action:
On the basis of the image information acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, the state determination unit 12 determines whether or not the driver is in a state unsuitable for driving operations (step S102). Specifically, the state determination unit 12 determines, on the basis of an image acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, whether or not the driver is in a state such as that of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like (Hara, see at least [0058] Fig. 3, S102).
6. The paragraph above satisfies the following conditions:
determine whether or not a situation around a vehicle or a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition where the predetermined warning condition is a situation of the driver, for example, the driver is in a state of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like.
where a driving control of the vehicle is executed without the driver holding a steering wheel since the driver is distracted, dozing off, out of the seat, or maintains poor posture or the like.
7. Furthermore, while Fig. 3 includes steps S103 to S105, these steps are not used for the rejection of the claim. Indeed, when the predetermined warning condition, as defined above, is satisfied, then the driver is notified of a request for holding the steering wheel:
When the operation unit 5 is the steering wheel, the touch sensor 2 detects whether or not the driver is holding the steering wheel. Fig. 3, S106, the notification control unit 16 notifies the driver of a request (touch request) for operably touching the operation unit 5 (step S106) (Hara, see at least [ [0035], Fig. 3, step 106).
8. The paragraph above satisfies the following limitations: notify the driver of a hands-on request for holding the steering wheel via a notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied. As illustrated by the flowchart of Fig. 3, when it is determined a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition, where the predetermined warning condition is a situation of the driver, for example, the driver is in a state of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like is satisfied, the flow chart progresses through the steps of the flow chart, until it reaches S106, where the driver is notified of a request for holding the operation unit. That is, notify[ing] the driver of a hands-on request for holding the steering wheel via a notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied.
9. Applicant continues, in Hara, the warning is canceled at S105 when the warning condition is not satisfied. That is, the warning is not continued until the driver holding the steering wheel when the warning condition is not satisfied. Hara further fails to disclose or suggest “continue the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified,” as recited in claim 1.
10. However, as mentioned above, steps $103-$105 of Hara are not relied upon for rejection of the claim. Furthermore, the claim recited notify the driver of a warning which is different from the predetermined warning condition. Indeed, a notification is continuously issued until the driver holds the operation unit:
Then, when the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the notification control unit 16 cancels the notification of the touch request (step S108), and the process is ended. On the other hand, when the driver has not touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the process moves again to step S107 to repeat the processing of step S107 (Hara, see at least [ [0063], Fig. 3, step S107-S108).
11. The paragraph above satisfies the following limitations: continuing the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified. As the flowchart in Fig. 3 illustrates, the notification is issued in a loop that checks to ensure the driver is holding the steering wheel. That encompasses continuing the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified.
12. As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
13. Applicant argues independent claim(s) 4-5 recite similar features as noted above with respect to claim 1, and are patentable for similar reasons.
14. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
15. Applicant argues dependent claim(s) 2-3 is/are patentable by the virtue of their dependency on independent claims 1 and the additional features recited in the dependent claims.
16. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons given above.
Status of Claims
17. This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 11/14/2025 for application number 18/637,978 filed on 04/17/2024, in which claims 1-5 were previously presented for examination.
18. No claim(s) has/have been amended. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-5 is/are currently pending.
Priority
19. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-090900, filed on 06/01/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
20. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 04/17/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner’s Notes
21. For Applicant’s convenience, the Examiner cites specific paragraphs, columns and lines, or page numbers in the relevant references as applicable to the rejection of the claims. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the prior art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, Applicant is respectfully requested to fully consider the references in their entirety. These references may potentially teach all or part of the claimed invention. The Applicant is also required to clearly address the objections to the claims and the rejections of the claims in their response. Additionally, Applicant should specifically point out the support for any claim amendments made within their specification. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
22. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
23. Claim(s) 1, and 4-5
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hara et al. (US-20210016804-A1).
In regard to claim 1
, Hara teaches A vehicle control device comprising: (Fig. 1, [0029] The driving assistance system 40 is mounted in a vehicle and it is capable of driving that lets a driver take his or her hands off the steering wheel (hands-off driving).)
a processor configured to: (Fig. 1, [0039] The control unit 100 is a component that controls the whole driving assistance system 40. The control unit 100 includes a processor 10.)
determine whether or not a situation around a vehicle or a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition in a case where a driving control of the vehicle is executed without the driver holding a steering wheel, (Fig. 3, S102, [0058] on the basis of the image information acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, the state determination unit 12 determines whether or not the driver is in a state unsuitable for driving operations (step S102). Specifically, the state determination unit 12 determines, on the basis of an image acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, whether or not the driver is in a state such as that of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like.)
notify the driver of a hands-on request for holding the steering wheel via a notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied, ([0035] When the operation unit 5 is the steering wheel, the touch sensor 2 detects whether or not the driver is holding the steering wheel. Fig. 3, S106, the notification control unit 16 notifies the driver of a request (touch request) for operably touching the operation unit 5 (step S106).)
notify the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied, ([0062] The notification of the touch request is made by a voice sound output from the speaker 3 or a display on the GUI 4. The notification of the touch request is made by displaying a notification, such as “Please hold the steering wheel”, on the meter panel and outputting the same notification as a voice sound. Alternatively, the notification of the touch request is a notification through tactile sensation by a haptic device, a notification by seat belt vibration, a notification by seat vibration, or the like which is notifying the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device.)
determine whether or not the driver holds the steering wheel in response to an in-vehicle sensor signal from an in-vehicle sensor that detects an action of the driver, and (Fig. 3, S107, [0063] Next, on the basis of a detection signal of the touch sensor 2, the touch determination unit 18 determines whether or not the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time (step S107).)
continue the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified. ([0063] Then, when the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the notification control unit 16 cancels the notification of the touch request (step S108), and the process is ended. On the other hand, when the driver has not touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the process moves again to step S107 to repeat the processing of step S107.)
In regard to claim 4
, Hara teaches A vehicle control method comprising: (Figs. 1-7, [0029] The driving assistance system 40 is mounted in a vehicle and it is capable of driving that lets a driver take his or her hands off the steering wheel (hands-off driving). Figs, 3-7 illustrate methods that are executed by the driving assistance system.)
determining whether or not a situation around a vehicle or a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition in a case where a driving control of the vehicle is executed without the driver holding a steering wheel; (Fig. 3, S102, [0058] on the basis of the image information acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, the state determination unit 12 determines whether or not the driver is in a state unsuitable for driving operations (step S102). Specifically, the state determination unit 12 determines, on the basis of an image acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, whether or not the driver is in a state such as that of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like.)
notifying the driver of a hands-on request for holding the steering wheel via a notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied; ([0035] When the operation unit 5 is the steering wheel, the touch sensor 2 detects whether or not the driver is holding the steering wheel. Fig. 3, S106, the notification control unit 16 notifies the driver of a request (touch request) for operably touching the operation unit 5 (step S106).)
notifying the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied; ([0062] The notification of the touch request is made by a voice sound output from the speaker 3 or a display on the GUI 4. The notification of the touch request is made by displaying a notification, such as “Please hold the steering wheel”, on the meter panel and outputting the same notification as a voice sound. Alternatively, the notification of the touch request is a notification through tactile sensation by a haptic device, a notification by seat belt vibration, a notification by seat vibration, or the like which is notifying the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device.)
determining whether or not the driver holds the steering wheel in response to an in-vehicle sensor signal from an in-vehicle sensor that detects an action of the driver; and (Fig. 3, S107, [0063] Next, on the basis of a detection signal of the touch sensor 2, the touch determination unit 18 determines whether or not the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time (step S107).)
continuing the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified. ([0063] Then, when the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the notification control unit 16 cancels the notification of the touch request (step S108), and the process is ended. On the other hand, when the driver has not touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the process moves again to step S107 to repeat the processing of step S107.)
In regard to claim 5
, Hara teaches A non-transitory recording medium that stores a computer program for vehicle control, the computer program causing a processor mounted on a vehicle to execute a process comprising: (Fig. 1, [0029] The driving assistance system 40 is mounted in a vehicle and it is capable of driving that lets a driver take his or her hands off the steering wheel (hands-off driving). [0039] The control unit 100 is a component that controls the whole driving assistance system 40. The control unit 100 includes a processor 10, a memory 20. The memory 20 is one example of a storage unit, and includes, for example, a volatile semiconductor memory and a nonvolatile semiconductor memory which are non-transitory recording media.)
determining whether or not a situation around a vehicle or a situation of a driver of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined warning condition in a case where a driving control of the vehicle is executed without the driver holding a steering wheel; (Fig. 3, S102, [0058] on the basis of the image information acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, the state determination unit 12 determines whether or not the driver is in a state unsuitable for driving operations (step S102). Specifically, the state determination unit 12 determines, on the basis of an image acquired from the driver monitor camera 1, whether or not the driver is in a state such as that of being distracted, dozing off, being out of the seat, or poor posture or the like.)
notifying the driver of a hands-on request for holding the steering wheel via a notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied; ([0035] When the operation unit 5 is the steering wheel, the touch sensor 2 detects whether or not the driver is holding the steering wheel. Fig. 3, S106, the notification control unit 16 notifies the driver of a request (touch request) for operably touching the operation unit 5 (step S106).)
notifying the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device when the predetermined warning condition is satisfied; ([0062] The notification of the touch request is made by a voice sound output from the speaker 3 or a display on the GUI 4. The notification of the touch request is made by displaying a notification, such as “Please hold the steering wheel”, on the meter panel and outputting the same notification as a voice sound. Alternatively, the notification of the touch request is a notification through tactile sensation by a haptic device, a notification by seat belt vibration, a notification by seat vibration, or the like which is notifying the driver of a warning that the driver does not hold the steering wheel via the notification device.)
determining whether or not the driver holds the steering wheel in response to an in-vehicle sensor signal from an in-vehicle sensor that detects an action of the driver; and (Fig. 3, S107, [0063] Next, on the basis of a detection signal of the touch sensor 2, the touch determination unit 18 determines whether or not the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time (step S107).)
continuing the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied after the hands-on request is notified. ([0063] Then, when the driver has touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the notification control unit 16 cancels the notification of the touch request (step S108), and the process is ended. On the other hand, when the driver has not touched the operation unit 5 continuously for a certain period of time, the process moves again to step S107 to repeat the processing of step S107.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. Claim(s) 2-3
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US-20210016804-A1) in view of Tsuji et al. (US-20220234599-A1).
In regard to claim 2
, Hara teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1.
Hara does not teach wherein the processor increases an intensity of the warning as an elapsed time from the notification of the hands-on request becomes longer, and
the processor stops the warning even if the driver does not hold the steering wheel when the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied while the intensity of the warning is a first strength, and continues the warning until the driver holds the steering wheel even if the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied while the intensity of the warning is a second strength stronger than the first strength.
However, Tsuji teaches the driving request unit 115C is configured to be able to output a first driving request MDR (Manual Driving Request) and a second driving request MDD (Manual Driving Demand) having a driving operation request level higher than that of the first driving request MDR. ([0052]). The second driving request MDD preferably has an attention calling capability higher than that of the first driving request MDR. The high attention calling capability includes both a fact that the number of notification types is large and a fact that a notification intensity is high ([0056]). An output time of the second driving request MDD is different from an output time of the first driving request MDR. The output time of the second driving request MDD is longer than the output time of the first driving request MDR, and the output time of the second driving request MDD is shorter than the output time of the first driving request MDR ([0057]). The output time of the first driving request is the elapsed time from the notification of the hands-on request. As mentioned above, after the output time of the first driving request, the second driving request which has a higher notification intensity is issued. When the driver responds to the first driving request MDR (YES in S12), that is, when the driver recognition unit 111D recognizes that the driver monitors surroundings of the vehicle (eyes-on) based on the direction of the face, the line of sight, or the like of the driver in response to the request of the task of monitoring the surroundings (eyes-on), the driving control unit 115A changes a driving level to a driving level lower than a current driving level (S13) ([0062], Fig. 4). The driver monitoring surroundings of the vehicle is when the predetermined warning condition is no longer satisfied while the intensity of the warning is a first strength. When the driver does not respond to the first driving request MDR (NO in S12), the driving request unit 115C subsequently performs the second driving request MDD after a predetermined time has elapsed since the output of the first driving request MDR (S14) ([0063], Fig 4) which is continuing the warning while the intensity of the warning is a second strength stronger than the first strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify driving assistance apparatus of Hara, by incorporating the teachings of Tsuji, such that when the driver does not hold the steering wheel after the first driving request, a second driving request that has a driving operation request level higher than that of the first driving request is issued and when the condition for the first driving request does not exist and the driver starts monitoring surrounding the vehicle, the notification for the first driving request is cleared and when the driver does not respond to the first driving request the second driving request is issued.
if the driver does not hold the steering wheel after the output time of the second driving request, then the vehicle is stopped.
The motivation to modify is that, as acknowledged by Tsuji, to set a driving level in accordance with a situation by requesting different driving operations in accordance with urgency ([0139]) which one of ordinary skill would have recognized allows to prioritize and handle different driving situation based on their urgency.
In regard to claim 3
, Hara, as modified by Tsuji, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 2.
Further, Tsuji teaches the driving request unit 115C is configured to be able to output a first driving request MDR (Manual Driving Request) and a second driving request MDD (Manual Driving Demand) having a driving operation request level higher than that of the first driving request MDR. ([0052]). The second driving request MDD preferably has an attention calling capability higher than that of the first driving request MDR. The high attention calling capability includes both a fact that the number of notification types is large and a fact that a notification intensity is high ([0056]). An output time of the second driving request MDD is different from an output time of the first driving request MDR. The output time of the second driving request MDD is longer than the output time of the first driving request MDR, and the output time of the second driving request MDD is shorter than the output time of the first driving request MDR ([0057]). When the driver does not respond to the first driving request MDR (NO in S12), the driving request unit 115C subsequently performs the second driving request MDD after a predetermined time has elapsed since the output of the first driving request MDR (S14). When the driver does not respond to the second driving request MDD (NO in S15), the driving control unit 115A performs vehicle stop control for stopping the host vehicle M (S17) ([0063]-[0064], Fig 4). The output time for the second driving request MDD is the predetermined grace period elapses after the intensity of the warning is changed to the second strength. As mentioned above, if the driver does not hold the steering wheel after that time, the vehicle is stopped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify driving assistance apparatus of Hara, as already modified by Tsuji, by further incorporating the teachings of Tsuji, such that when the driver does not hold the steering wheel after the first driving request, a second driving request that has a driving operation request level higher than that of the first driving request is issued and if the driver does not hold the steering wheel after the output time of the second driving request, then the vehicle is stopped.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Tsuji in regard to claim 2.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi (US-20240174247-A1) teaches a vehicle notification device that is applied to an automated driving vehicle.
Okada et al. (US-20240043031-A1) teaches controlling information presentation to a driver of a vehicle with autonomous driving function.
27. 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).
28. 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.
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
30. 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.
31. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
32. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661