DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 25, 2026. Claims 1 - 8, 14 - 20, and 22 have been amended. Claims 9 and 21 have been cancelled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1 - 8, 10 - 20, and 22 - 23 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed on March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for amended claims 1 - 8, 14 - 20, and 22, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 - 8, 10 - 20, and 22 under Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 103 are discussed below.
Applicant’s response arguments, with regards to claims 1 - 8, 10 - 20, and 22, filed on March 25, 2026 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection under the combination of Tadashi, Huwyler, Li, and Wakiyama which are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Please see detailed rejections below.
1 – 4, 9 – 10, and 13 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP 2018/097804 A to SHIBATA TADASHI et al. (herein after "Tadashi") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0053304 A1 to HUWYLER et al. (herein after "Huwler") Huwyler et al., and further in view of US 2020/0035124 A1 to Li (herein after "Li"), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0259219 A1 to WAKIYAMA et al. (herein after "Wakiyama").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1, (currently amended)
Tadashi’s information processing system discloses a method (see ¶0008 ~ method wherein an information processing system 1200 constructs a driver model indicating a relationship between a state of drivers' behaviors and a vehicle driving environment, ¶00417 ~ "when provided in a vehicle, the danger determination unit 1010.. acquires the behavior and driving environment of the vehicle itself… the behavior and driving environment of other vehicles, and determines whether the behavior is dangerous or not", and ¶0427 ~ environment acquisition unit 1003 positively discloses acquiring a driving environment while a vehicle may be likely to experience and/or perform a "lane departure"; thus Tadashi teaches a driving environment being acquired while the vehicle travels over a given distance, particular when the environment acquisition unit 1003 is monitoring for lane departure conditions).
However, Tadashi’s information processing system does not explicitly disclose receiving and storing, by one or more processors, information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time;
determining, by the one or more processors based on the stored information, a pattern of the driver's behavior over the given distance or time; and
comparing, by the one or more processors, the pattern of the driver’s behavior to expected driver behavior; and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle actions based, at least in part, on the comparing.
Huwyler’s dynamic variable fuel optimization system, on the other hand, discloses receiving and storing, by one or more processors (see claim 8 ~ an onboard vehicle), information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time (Pursuant to [0074] of the disclosure see ¶0068; Huwyler ~ "present invention 2 has a user interface 160 in communication with on-board ECU 32 via connection 178 that will enable real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver... specifically valuable as it pertains to driver operation... system also provides a variety of other feedback to optimize efficient driving behavior such as warnings for hard braking, acceleration and cornering").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving actions performance evaluation system, as taught by Huwyler, where the resultant combination would successfully provide real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver (see ¶0068; Huwyler), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable maintenance and parts reliability notifications / warnings. (See ¶0068; Huwyler).
Li’s driver training instruction system discloses determining, by the one or more processors based on the received information (see ¶0067 and Abstract; Li ~ computer comprising non-transitory computer readable medium), results indicating that the driver failed to perform at least one driving action. (See ¶0023 ~ “the vehicle may be controlled to execute the desired vehicle operation based on a non-conforming response of the driver to the provision of the instruction to the driver… the non-conforming response of the driver may include the driver… not following the provided instruction” and ¶0049 ~ "based on the driver of the vehicle 232 failing to slow down to allow the vehicle 234 to pass, the vehicle 232 may be automatically controlled to allow the vehicle 234 to pass before returning the control of the vehicle 232 to the driver to make the lane change"; thus pursuant to [0056] and [0068] of the disclosure, Li’s driver training instruction system teaches failing to perform the driving action of braking with respect to perceived environmental information as indicated in ¶0029; Li).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving actions failure assessment system, as taught by Li, where the resultant combination would successfully provide automatic control of a vehicle when a driver fails to take appropriate driving, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers.
Tadashi’s information processing system 1200 best embodies constructing a driver model indicating a relationship between a state of drivers' behaviors and a vehicle driving environment (see ¶0008, ¶0417, and ¶0427; Tadashi) and further discusses driver comparisons to a driver model from a group of similar drivers (see ¶0361 - ¶0362 and ¶281; Tadashi).
Although Tadashi discusses driver behaviors within a calculated mesh of a plurality of drivers (see ¶0315; Tadashi ~ driving histories of a plurality of drivers is compared to generate a driver model, ¶0321, and ¶0347; Tadashi ~ "vehicle control unit 7 stores this content in the cache 292.... extracts… comparing the surrounding conditions… selects the behavior with the largest number of behaviors contained in the determined mesh, and determines the selected behavior as the behavior to be reported"), Wakiyama best teaches comparing, by the one or more processors, the pattern of the driver's behavior to expected driver behavior. (See ¶0024; Wakiyama ~ "By comparing the driving behavior of the driver for a predetermined period of time with a predetermined driving behavior pattern, the driving behavior of the driver can be predicted with a higher accuracy", ¶0035; Wakiyama ~ "the estimation unit includes a driving behavior storage unit for storing the operation amounts for a predetermined period of time, a driving pattern storage unit for storing a predetermined driving behavior pattern... and a similarity degree calculation unit for determining a similarity by comparing the operation amounts stored in the driving behavior storage unit with a predetermined driving behavior pattern and calculating the behavioral intention estimating information based on the most analogous driving pattern, and ¶0046; Wakiyama ~ regarding a predetermined driving behavior pattern comparison operation; thereby teaching a comparison of driving behavior over a period of time (~ a driving pattern or sequence) to a predetermined (~ expected and/or forethought) driving behavior pattern).
Additionally, a combination of Wakiyama’s vehicle climate control system builds upon Tadashi to provides more clarification regarding controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle actions based, at least in part, on the comparing. (See ¶0048; Wakiyama ~ vehicle climate control operations are controlled in accordance with the comparing of the pattern of the driver's behavior to the expected driver behavior).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving behavior comparison system, as taught by Wakiyama, where the resultant combination would successfully provide “correcting a predetermined driving behavior pattern based on the actual driving behavior pattern of the driver for the similarity degree” ~ see ¶0050; Wakiyama), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable vehicle operations and maneuvers.
As to Claim 2, (new)
Tadashi/Huwyler/Li/Wakiyama discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
creating, by the one or more processors, a variance signal based on the comparing,
wherein the variance signal indicates a deviation in driver performance (See ¶0458; Tadashi ~ deviation values attributed with driver behaviors relative to changing driving environment conditions are considered as a function / component of the driving history which is considered in the model and ¶0460; Tadashi ~ "modeling unit 1202 constructs a driver model.... each of a plurality of driving environments based on the driving history") relative to the model. (See ¶0024, ¶0035, and ¶0046; Wakiyama ~ regarding a predetermined driving behavior pattern comparison operation; thereby teaching a comparison of driving behavior over a periord of time (~ a driving pattern or sequence) to a predetermined (~ expected and/or forethought) driving behavior pattern).
As to Claim 3, (new)
Tadashi/Huwyler/Li/Wakiyama discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the model is a nominal model that includes aggregated, anonymized driving information for a plurality of drivers. (See ¶0496; Tadashi ~ modeling unit 1202 functions wherein a "processor models the individual driving histories of at least some of the multiple drivers based on the similarity between the individual driving histories of each of the multiple drivers, thereby constructing a driver model that shows the relationship between the state of at least some of the drivers and the driving environment of the vehicle"; wherein the nominal model does not preclude driving data from being anonymized).
As to Claim 4, (new)
Tadashi/Huwyler/Li/Wakiyama discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the model includes information associated with past driving history of the driver. (See ¶0413; Tadashi ~ model includes data corresponding to past driving history of the driver).
As to Claim 10, (old)
Tadashi/Huwyler/Li/Wakiyama discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the one or more vehicle actions include providing haptic feedback to the driver in order to notify the driver that the driver's behavior is aberrant. (See ¶0471; Tadashi ~ a haptic sound -- where the vibration can be audibly heard -- alerts the driver of circumstances of aberrant driving behavior).
As to Claim 13, (old)
Tadashi/Huwyler/Li discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the one or more vehicle actions include limiting or reducing a speed of the vehicle. (See ¶0095 and ¶0281; Tadashi ~ "automatic driving control unit 281... controls the vehicle according to the obtained vehicle speed/inter-vehicle distance/acceleration/deceleration pattern").
As to Claim 14, (currently amended)
Tadashi’s system discloses a vehicle (see Fig. 1 ~ illustrates an information processing system in an exemplary vehicle ¶0018 ~ vehicle 1) comprising:
memory (see Fig. 2 and ¶0025 ~ memory 206); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (see Fig. 1 and ¶0528 ~ processor(s)), the one or more processors.
However, Tadashi does not explicitly disclose receive information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time;
determine, based on the received information,
results indicating that the driver failed to perform at least one driving action;
comparing, by the one or more processors, the pattern of the driver's behavior to expected driver behavior; and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle actions based, at least in part, on the comparing.
On the contrary, Huwyler’s dynamic variable fuel optimization system, on the other hand, discloses receiving and storing, by one or more processors (see claim 8 ~ an onboard vehicle), information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time (Pursuant to [0074] of the disclosure see ¶0068; Huwyler ~ "present invention 2 has a user interface 160 in communication with on-board ECU 32 via connection 178 that will enable real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver... specifically valuable as it pertains to driver operation... system also provides a variety of other feedback to optimize efficient driving behavior such as warnings for hard braking, acceleration and cornering").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving actions performance evaluation system, as taught by Huwyler, where the resultant combination would successfully provide real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver (see ¶0068; Huwyler), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable maintenance and parts reliability notifications / warnings. (See ¶0068; Huwyler).
Li then asserts determining, based on the received information, results indicating that the driver failed to perform at least one driving action. (See ¶0023 ~ “the vehicle may be controlled to execute the desired vehicle operation based on a non-conforming response of the driver to the provision of the instruction to the driver… the non-conforming response of the driver may include the driver… not following the provided instruction” and ¶0049 ~ "based on the driver of the vehicle 232 failing to slow down to allow the vehicle 234 to pass, the vehicle 232 may be automatically controlled to allow the vehicle 234 to pass before returning the control of the vehicle 232 to the driver to make the lane change"; thus pursuant to [0056] and [0068] of the disclosure, Li’s driver training instruction system teaches failing to perform the driving action of braking with respect to perceived environmental information as indicated in ¶0029; Li).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving actions failure assessment system, as taught by Li, where the resultant combination would successfully provide automatic control of a vehicle when a driver fails to take appropriate driving, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers.
Tadashi’s information processing system 1200 best embodies constructing a driver model indicating a relationship between a state of drivers' behaviors and a vehicle driving environment (see ¶0008, ¶0417, and ¶0427; Tadashi) and further discusses driver comparisons to a driver model from a group of similar drivers (see ¶0361 - ¶0362 and ¶281; Tadashi).
Although Tadashi discusses driver behaviors within a calculated mesh of a plurality of drivers (see ¶0315; Tadashi ~ driving histories of a plurality of drivers is compared to generate a driver model, ¶0321, and ¶0347; Tadashi ~ "vehicle control unit 7 stores this content in the cache 292.... extracts… comparing the surrounding conditions… selects the behavior with the largest number of behaviors contained in the determined mesh, and determines the selected behavior as the behavior to be reported"), Wakiyama best teaches comparing, by the one or more processors, the pattern of the driver's behavior to expected driver behavior. (See ¶0024; Wakiyama ~ "By comparing the driving behavior of the driver for a predetermined period of time with a predetermined driving behavior pattern, the driving behavior of the driver can be predicted with a higher accuracy", ¶0035; Wakiyama ~ "the estimation unit includes a driving behavior storage unit for storing the operation amounts for a predetermined period of time, a driving pattern storage unit for storing a predetermined driving behavior pattern... and a similarity degree calculation unit for determining a similarity by comparing the operation amounts stored in the driving behavior storage unit with a predetermined driving behavior pattern and calculating the behavioral intention estimating information based on the most analogous driving pattern, and ¶0046; Wakiyama ~ regarding a predetermined driving behavior pattern comparison operation; thereby teaching a comparison of driving behavior over a period of time (~ a driving pattern or sequence) to a predetermined (~ expected and/or forethought) driving behavior pattern).
Additionally, a combination of Wakiyama’s vehicle climate control system builds upon Tadashi to provides more clarification regarding controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle actions based, at least in part, on the comparing. (See ¶0048; Wakiyama ~ vehicle climate control operations are controlled in accordance with the comparing of the pattern of the driver's behavior to the expected driver behavior).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving behavior comparison system, as taught by Wakiyama, where the resultant combination would successfully provide “correcting a predetermined driving behavior pattern based on the actual driving behavior pattern of the driver for the similarity degree” ~ see ¶0050; Wakiyama), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable vehicle operations and maneuvers.
As to Claim 15, (currently amended)
Modified Tadashi discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
create a variance signal based on the comparing,
wherein the variance signal indicates a deviation in driver performance (See ¶0458; Tadashi ~ deviation values attributed with driver behaviors relative to changing driving environment conditions are considered as a function / component of the driving history which is considered in the model and ¶0460; Tadashi ~ "modeling unit 1202 constructs a driver model.... each of a plurality of driving environments based on the driving history") relative to the model. (See ¶0024, ¶0035, and ¶0046; Wakiyama ~ regarding a predetermined driving behavior pattern comparison operation; thereby teaching a comparison of driving behavior over a periord of time (~ a driving pattern or sequence) to a predetermined (~ expected and/or forethought) driving behavior pattern).
As to Claim 16, (currently amended)
Modified Tadashi discloses the vehicle of claim 14,
wherein the expected driver behavior is determined based on aggregated, anonymized driving information for a plurality of drivers. (See ¶0496; Tadashi ~ modeling unit 1202 functions wherein a "processor models the individual driving histories of at least some of the multiple drivers based on the similarity between the individual driving histories of each of the multiple drivers, thereby constructing a driver model that shows the relationship between the state of at least some of the drivers and the driving environment of the vehicle"; wherein the nominal model does not preclude driving data from being anonymized).
As to Claim 17, (currently amended)
Modified Tadashi discloses the vehicle of claim 14,
wherein the expected driver behavior includes information associated with past driving history of the driver. (See ¶0413; Tadashi ~ model includes data corresponding to past driving history of the driver).
Claims 7, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. JP 2018/097804 A to SHIBATA TADASHI et al. (herein after "Tadashi") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0053304 A1 to HUWYLER et al. (herein after "Huwler") Huwyler et al., and further in view of US 2020/0035124 A1 to Li (herein after "Li"), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0259219 A1 to WAKIYAMA et al. (herein after "Wakiyama") as to claims 1 and 14 respectively above, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0122741 A1 to KUEHNLE et al. (herein after "Kuehnle").
As to Claim 7, (new)
Tadashi substantially discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to obey a traffic signal or a sign.
On the other hand, Kuehnle’s system for providing User-specific driver assistance discloses driver behavioral considerations comprising wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to obey a traffic signal or a sign. (See ¶0038; Kuehnle ~ driver behavior measurement module 320 logs driver behavior data 330 which may include, but not be limited to, failure to obey traffic signs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driver behavior measurement module (320), as taught by Kuehnle, where the resultant combination would successfully provide a behavioral model generated that includes scenarios wherein when driver(s) fail to obey traffic signs warnings are provided to other vehicle drivers proximate to the vehicle demonstrating aberrant driving behavior, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers.
As to Claim 11, (new)
Tadashi substantially discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more vehicle actions include alerting one or more other drivers about the driver's behavior.
On the contrary, Kuehnle discloses wherein the one or more vehicle actions include alerting one or more other drivers about the driver's behavior. (See ¶0003; Kuehnle ~ following distance warnings are applied to all drivers in the vicinity of an aberrant driving vehicle, ¶0039; Kuehnle ~ fleet wide management server may report warnings about other drivers' aberrant behavior -- based upon historical data -- and may administer fleet-wide driving parameters due to the ascertained risk / threat, ¶0040, and ¶0043; Kuehnle)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driver behavior measurement module (320), as taught by Kuehnle, where the resultant combination would successfully provide a behavioral model generated that includes scenarios wherein when driver(s) fail to obey traffic signs warnings are provided to other vehicle drivers proximate to the vehicle demonstrating aberrant driving behavior, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers.
As to Claim 20, (currently amended)
Tadashi substantially discloses the vehicle of claim 14, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to obey a traffic signal or a sign.
Conversely, Kuehnle discloses driver behavioral considerations comprising wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to obey a traffic signal or a sign. (See ¶0038; Kuehnle ~ driver behavior measurement module 320 logs driver behavior data 330 which may include, but not be limited to, failure to obey traffic signs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driver behavior measurement module (320), as taught by Kuehnle, where the resultant combination would successfully provide a behavioral model generated that includes scenarios wherein when driver(s) fail to obey traffic signs warnings are provided to other vehicle drivers proximate to the vehicle demonstrating aberrant driving behavior, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. Japanese Patent No. JP 2018/097804 A to SHIBATA TADASHI et al. (herein after "Tadashi") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0053304 A1 to HUWYLER et al. (herein after "Huwler") Huwyler et al., and further in view of US 2020/0035124 A1 to Li (herein after "Li"), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0259219 A1 to WAKIYAMA et al. (herein after "Wakiyama") as to claim 1 above, in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 10,583,831 B2 to Schmiidderich (herein after "Schmiidderich").
As to Claim 12, (new)
Tadashi substantially discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the alerting includes changing an orientation or a pattern of one or more headlights of the vehicle.
Scmudderich’s predictive driver assistance system using vehicle light-based communication discloses wherein the alerting includes changing an orientation or a pattern of one or more headlights of the vehicle. (See Col. 15, Lines 33 - 44 ~ modulating headlamps 31/22 according to the determined driving behavior deemed necessary to communicate / signal / alert / elicit a warning and Claim 9 ~ vehicle headlight / headlamp patterns are modified to signal alert / warnings information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the light based communication module, as taught by Scmudderich, where the resultant combination would successfully provide expanded aberrant vehicle driving behavior warnings in a diversity of driving environment and weather conditions, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers; and improved vehicle reaction times when / if another driver behaves unexpectedly or deviates from the norm.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. Japanese Patent No. JP 2018/097804 A to SHIBATA TADASHI et al. (herein after "Tadashi") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0053304 A1 to HUWYLER et al. (herein after "Huwler") Huwyler et al., and further in view of US 2020/0035124 A1 to Li (herein after "Li"), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0259219 A1 to WAKIYAMA et al. (herein after "Wakiyama") as to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0070286 A1 to GREEN et al. (herein after "Green").
As to Claim 8, (new)
Modified Tadashi substantially discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to signal.
On the other hand, Green’s system for determining individualized driving behavior of vehicles discloses a behavioral model comprising wherein the failure to perform the at least one driving action includes a failure to signal. (See ¶0044; Green ~ "the prediction model 220A to predict driving behaviors of a vehicle of interest based on the historical driving behavior data and current contextual data of the vehicle of interest... may include, but are not limited to, failing to turn on turning signals before making a turn, failing to turn with turning signals flashing").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the prediction model (220A), as taught by Green, where the resultant combination would successfully provide improved predictive driving behavior models, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable collision avoidance and mitigation maneuvers; and improved vehicle reaction times when / if another driver behaves unexpectedly or deviates from the norm (e.g., failing to stop at a stop sign).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. Japanese Patent No. JP 2018/097804 A to SHIBATA TADASHI et al. (herein after "Tadashi") in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0053304 A1 to HUWYLER et al. (herein after "Huwler") Huwyler et al., and further in view of US 2020/0035124 A1 to Li (herein after "Li"), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0259219 A1 to WAKIYAMA et al. (herein after "Wakiyama").
As to Claim 22, (new)
Tadashi discloses a computer readable medium (see in 0023; Tadashi ~ computer readable medium) storing instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform a method.
However, Tadashi does not expressly disclose non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform a method comprising
receiving information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time; and
determining, based on the received information, results indicating that the driver failed to perform at least one driving action.
Conversely, Huwyler discloses receiving and storing information associated with driving actions performed by a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle travels a given distance or a given amount of time (Pursuant to [0074] of the disclosure see ¶0068; Huwyler ~ "present invention 2 has a user interface 160 in communication with on-board ECU 32 via connection 178 that will enable real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver... specifically valuable as it pertains to driver operation... system also provides a variety of other feedback to optimize efficient driving behavior such as warnings for hard braking, acceleration and cornering").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving actions performance evaluation system, as taught by Huwyler, where the resultant combination would successfully provide real time transmission of feedback and system performance to the driver (see ¶0068; Huwyler), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable maintenance and parts reliability notifications / warnings. (See ¶0068; Huwyler).
On the contrary, Li discloses non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform a method. (see ¶0067 and Abstract; Li ~ non-transitory computer readable medium).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tadashi with non-transitory computer readable medium, as taught Li, to provide facility wherein embedded code exists excluding wired, wireless, or other communication links that transport transitory electrical or other signals, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: distinguishing the system such that program code may be executed apart from a transitory, propagating signal, and performed from a permanently stored medium / media and media where data can be stored and later overwritten.
Tadashi’s information processing system 1200 best embodies constructing a driver model indicating a relationship between a state of drivers' behaviors and a vehicle driving environment (see ¶0008, ¶0417, and ¶0427; Tadashi) and further discusses driver comparisons to a driver model from a group of similar drivers (see ¶0361 - ¶0362 and ¶281; Tadashi).
Although Tadashi discusses driver behaviors within a calculated mesh of a plurality of drivers (see ¶0315; Tadashi ~ driving histories of a plurality of drivers is compared to generate a driver model, ¶0321, and ¶0347; Tadashi ~ "vehicle control unit 7 stores this content in the cache 292.... extracts… comparing the surrounding conditions… selects the behavior with the largest number of behaviors contained in the determined mesh, and determines the selected behavior as the behavior to be reported"), Wakiyama best teaches
Li further determines determining, based on the information, a pattern of the driver’s behavior. (See ¶0024, ¶0035, and ¶0046; Wakiyama); and comparing, by the one or more processors, the pattern of the driver's behavior to expected driver behavior. (See ¶0024; Wakiyama ~ "By comparing the driving behavior of the driver for a predetermined period of time with a predetermined driving behavior pattern, the driving behavior of the driver can be predicted with a higher accuracy", ¶0035; Wakiyama ~ "the estimation unit includes a driving behavior storage unit for storing the operation amounts for a predetermined period of time, a driving pattern storage unit for storing a predetermined driving behavior pattern... and a similarity degree calculation unit for determining a similarity by comparing the operation amounts stored in the driving behavior storage unit with a predetermined driving behavior pattern and calculating the behavioral intention estimating information based on the most analogous driving pattern, and ¶0046; Wakiyama ~ regarding a predetermined driving behavior pattern comparison operation; thereby teaching a comparison of driving behavior over a period of time (~ a driving pattern or sequence) to a predetermined (~ expected and/or forethought) driving behavior pattern).
Additionally, a combination of Wakiyama’s vehicle climate control system builds upon Tadashi to provides more clarification regarding controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform one or more vehicle actions based, at least in part, on the comparing. (See ¶0048; Wakiyama ~ vehicle climate control operations are controlled in accordance with the comparing of the pattern of the driver's behavior to the expected driver behavior).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Tadashi with the driving behavior comparison system, as taught by Wakiyama, where the resultant combination would successfully provide “correcting a predetermined driving behavior pattern based on the actual driving behavior pattern of the driver for the similarity degree” ~ see ¶0050; Wakiyama), thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: more timely and reliable vehicle operations and maneuvers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 6, 18 – 19, and 23 are 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.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing the method wherein the results further indicate whether one or more of the driving actions performed by the driver fall outside of a threshold range, the one or more of the driving actions that fall outside of the threshold range including lane departures; and
wherein the information further indicates a severity of one or more of the driving actions performed by the driver, and
wherein a driving action with a higher severity is weighted more heavily than a driving action with a lower severity. Emphasis added.
While Tadashi discusses rapid speed changes (see ¶0095 and ¶0115; Tadashi ~ the model considers rapid speed changes that may fall outside of the threshold range as a function of the adaptive cruise control feature being performed), Tadashi is silent in expressing wherein the driver’s actions perform the actual rapid speed changes.
Likewise, while Tadashi discusses lane departures as a factor that Tadashi’s environment acquisition unit 1103 monitors for (see ¶0425 and ¶0427; Tadashi ~ "environment acquisition unit 1003 acquires a driving environment in which there is a high possibility of lane departure, the warning processing unit 1016 estimates lane departure as a dangerous behavior"), Tadashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the driver’s actions perform the lane departure such that it exceeds a threshold range.
Consequently, the prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 14, and 22 might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights