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 Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 7/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited art “does not disclose a notice of termination that is displayed by changing a display mode of a bar-shaped display unit according to evaluated driving involvement degree”, and that neither Agnew nor Jutkowitz discloses or suggests that "the display mode for the notice of termination is different from the display mode for the traveling control termination". After careful consideration of Agnew, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Agnew teaches the equivalent of displaying a warning after first threshold but before a second threshold (Agnew [0294-0296]) in the form of result value C being above/below 75% to display red or green as an indicator of safety status. Furthermore Agnew terminates certain controls by controlling the vehicle to stop safely after a third reference index (Agnew [0363], [0400]) which is the equivalent of terminating travel control under the second threshold. By changing the color from red to green based on the C value, Agnew additionally teaches changing a mode of the bar-shaped display. By flickering a warning light to display a dangerous situation simultaneously with a bar-shaped graph mode change (red) (Agnew FIG. 22, S2240, [0004]), Agnew teaches that the notice of termination is different from the display mode for the traveling control/ bar-shaped graph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200098265A1 Agnew et al ("Agnew") in view of US10421465B1 (“Jutkowitz”).
As per claims 1, 6, 7 Agnew discloses the limitations of the device(s) and method:
A driver evaluation information providing device comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to detect driver information within a vehicle; and processor programmed to: monitor a condition of a driver of the vehicle based on a detection by at least one of the sensors; evaluate a driving involvement degree of the driver based on a result of monitoring of the monitored condition of the driver; perform a comparison of the evaluated driving involvement degree to a first threshold value and a second threshold value, the first threshold value being higher than the second threshold value; when the vehicle is performing the traveling control as the autonomous driving or the driving assist, a notice of termination of the driving assist is provided to the driver when the driving involvement degree is lower than the first threshold and higher than the second threshold, the notice of termination is displayed to the driver by changing a display mode of a bar-shaped display unit according to the evaluated driving involvement degree, and the display mode for the notice of termination is different from the display mode for the traveling control termination. (Agnew at least the abstract, [0004], [0017], FIG. 22, FIG. 21, FIG. 18B, [0294-0296], [0363], [0400], [0106], [0252], [0276-0277], [0289], [0312], [0325], and [0373]) *Examiner’s note: cited prior art is silent on the exact embodiment of color and blinking duration combinations as described in FIG. 4 of the present application.
Agnew does not explicitly disclose, which Jutkowitz teaches:
cause a change in a driving level of the vehicle based on a result of the comparison, wherein the driving level includes an autonomous driving level, a driving assist level, and a manual driving level (Jutkowitz at least the abstract, FIG. 3, col 3 lines 50-55, col 22 lines 10-15, col 28 lines 45-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Jutkowitz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve efficiency of switching between modes (Jutkowitz col 28).
As per claim 8, Agnew in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
the plurality of sensors include a steering sensor, an accelerator pedal sensor, a brake pedal sensor and a camera. (Agnew at least [0017])
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200098265A1 Agnew et al ("Agnew") and Jutkowitz in view of US20160207537A1 Urano et al ("Urano").
Regarding claim 2, Agnew in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. Agnew does not disclose:
the processor is programmed to, when the vehicle is performing traveling control as autonomous driving or driving assist, provide information indicating that the driving involvement degree is approaching the second threshold value to the driver.
Urano teaches the aforementioned limitation (Urano at least FIGs. 7A-7C, FIG. 11, FIGs 4A-4D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Agnew with the aforementioned limitations taught by Urano with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve safety (Urano [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
the processor is programmed to, when the vehicle is performing the traveling control, provide information indicating that the driving involvement degree is changing away from the second threshold value to the driver. (Agnew at least FIG. 36)
Regarding claim 4, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
the processor is programmed to continuously provide, by changing a length of a lit portion of the bar-shaped display unit provided in front of a seat of the driver of the vehicle, information about the driving involvement degree to the driver while the traveling control is being performed. (Agnew at least FIG. 21)
Regarding claim 5, Agnew in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Agnew additionally teaches:
the processor is programmed to highlight an end of the lit portion of the display unit; the end is configured to change, based on a change in the driving involvement degree, in length; the processor is programmed to vary a first highlight and a second highlight; the first highlight is a highlight of the end when the lit portion is configured to decrease in length due to a decrease in the driving involvement degree; and the second highlight is a highlight of the end when the bar-shaped lit portion is configured to increase in length due to an increase in the driving involvement degree. (Agnew at least [0291-0296])
*Examiner’s note: Urano at least FIGs 4A-4D similarly display a bar shaped graph indicating driver involvement levels.
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights