DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/666,239 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 19.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15. However, new rejections of claims 1-20 under § 103 are set forth below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/261,639, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 15/365,619 does not provide support or enablement for the claim limitations determining, by the at least one processor from location data included in the set of sensor data, that the vehicle is located within an area with a reduced speed limit; determining, by the at least one processor based upon the set of image data, that the operator is distracted while the vehicle is located within the area with the reduced speed limit; and in response to determining that the operator is distracted while the vehicle is located within the area with the reduced speed limit, automatically causing the vehicle to activate an autonomous mode. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of Application No. 15/365,619.
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, 2, 5-9, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix et al. (US 2017/0113664 A1, “Nix”) in view of Kaufmann et al. (US 2008/0183342 A1, “Kaufmann”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Nix discloses systems and methods for detecting surprising events in vehicles and teaches:
accumulating, by at least one processor from a set of sensors, a set of sensor data during operation of a vehicle (fusion module 410 may combine information received from radar sensors 415, cameras 417 and data received from GPS 420 – see at least ¶ [0073]; GPS sensor may generate or receive location information – see at least ¶ [0038]);
determining, by the at least one processor from location data included in the set of sensor data, that the vehicle is located within an area with a reduced speed limit (particular zones may be determined based on information received via cameras or, alternatively, based on information received via GPS 420 – see at least ¶ [0074]; speed limit change detected – see at least ¶ [0077]);
retrieving, from at least one image sensor disposed within the vehicle, a set of image data depicting an operator of the vehicle (cabin camera – see at least ¶ [0037]);
determining, by the at least one processor [ ], that the operator is distracted while the vehicle is located within the area with the reduced speed limit (alertness of driver may be monitored – see at least ¶ [0046]); and
in response to determining that the operator is distracted while the vehicle is located within the area with the reduced speed limit, automatically causing the vehicle to activate an autonomous mode (vehicle may take automatic action if the vehicle operator appears inattentive – seat least ¶ [0055]; fusion and control module 410 may output instructions to brake controls 432 to briefly actuate the brakes when cameras 4178 detect a sign for a speed limit change to a second speed, less than the first speed – see at least ¶ [0077]; particular zones may be determined based on information received via cameras or, alternatively, based on information received via GPS 420 – see at least ¶ [0074]).
Nix fails to teach determining based upon the set of image data that the operator is distracted.
However, Kaufmann discloses a system for lane change detection and handling of lane keeping torque and teaches:
retrieving, from at least one image sensor disposed within the vehicle, a set of image data depicting an operator of the vehicle (driver attention monitoring device 1780 may include a camera system to monitor the status of an operator – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0025]);
determining, by the at least one processor based on the set of image data, that the operator is distracted (monitoring device 170 ascertains a percentage eye closure – see at least ¶ [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the systems and methods of Nix to provide for determining that the operator is distracted using known methods, such as based on image data from an image sensor, as taught by Kaufmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, because determining distractedness based on images may be used to take action and provide warnings to the driver (Kaufmann at ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Nix further teaches:
collecting, by the at least one processor from the set of sensors, a set of telematics data associated with the operation of the vehicle (additional sensors may be included in a sensor subsystem 210 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0037]; sensor subsystem 210 may communicate with and receive inputs from various vehicle sensors and may further receive user inputs. For example, the inputs received by sensor subsystem 210 may include inputs from adaptive damping systems, air suspension controls, suspension sensors, shock sensors, other sensors indicating vertical, lateral, or longitudinal movement of the vehicle, transmission gear position, transmission clutch position, gas pedal input, brake input, transmission selector position, vehicle speed, vehicle yaw rate, vehicle lateral acceleration, vehicle longitudinal acceleration, steering angle, steering wheel angle, tire pressure monitoring system, seat belt tension sensors, occupancy indicators, weight indicators, payload indicators, brake pad wear indicators, tire temperature indicators, engine speed, mass airflow through the engine, ambient temperature, intake air temperature, vehicle inclination, etc., as well as inputs from climate control system sensors (such as heat transfer fluid temperature, antifreeze temperature, fan speed, passenger compartment temperature, desired passenger compartment temperature, ambient humidity, etc.), an audio sensor detecting voice commands issued by a user, a fob sensor receiving commands from and optionally tracking the geographic location/proximity of a fob of the vehicle, etc – see at least ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Nix further teaches:
capturing an additional set of sensor data (additional sensors may be included in a sensor subsystem 210 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0037]).
Kaufmann also teaches:
capturing an additional set of sensor data (driver action/physiology/intention sensing – see at least Fig. 2; pressure/force sensor – see at least ¶ [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined systems and methods of Nix and Kaufmann to provide for capturing an additional set of sensor data, as further taught by Kaufmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the additional sensor data may be employed to determine if the driver is controlling the vehicle (Kaufmann at ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Kaufmann further teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor based on the set of image data and the additional set of sensor data, that the operator is distracted (autonomous mode may be entered if monitoring device 170 does not indicate that driver is awake and the driver does not take control of the vehicle – see at least ¶ [0026]; pressure/force sensor may be employed to determine if the driver is controlling the steering wheel – see at least ¶ [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined systems and methods of Nix and Kaufmann to provide for capturing an additional set of sensor data, as further taught by Kaufmann, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the additional sensor data may be employed to determine autonomous mode is necessary based on driver attention and control (Kaufmann at ¶ [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, 14, and 20, Nix further teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor, an action for the vehicle to undergo to improve safety of the operation of the vehicle (vehicle may take automatic action if the vehicle operator appears inattentive – seat least ¶ [0055]; fusion and control module 410 may output instructions to brake controls 432 to briefly actuate the brakes when cameras 4178 detect a sign for a speed limit change to a second speed, less than the first speed – see at least ¶ [0077]).
Claims 3, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix in view of Kaufmann, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schofield et al. (US 2005/0232469 A1, “Schofield”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Nix and Kaufmann Schofield further teaches:
retrieving, from a server using the location data, information associated with the area (imaging system may be automatically adjusted or adapted to sign regulations in effect at the current location of the vehicle, e.g., sign shapes, sizes, colors of that zone or region – see at least ¶ [0068]-[0069]); and
determining, by the at least one processor based on the information, that the vehicle is located within the area with the reduced speed limit (type of sign, e.g., speed limit, may be identified and read based on size/shape/color/location – see at least ¶ [0071]; image processor may provide an alert or warning when the vehicle moves from one speed zone to another, e.g., higher to lower zones – see at least ¶ [0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined systems and methods of Nix and Kaufmann to provide for determining that a vehicle is in a reduced speed limit area, as further taught by Scofield, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the determination may be used to cause the display draw the driver’s attention to the new speed limit (Schofield at ¶ [0076]).
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nix in view of Kaufmann, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Cronin et al. (US 2018/0266834 A1, “Cronin”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Nix and Kauffman fail to teach but Cronin discloses a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle and teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor from the location data included in the set of sensor data, that the vehicle is located in a school zone having the reduced speed limit (device information 210 indicating that the autonomous vehicle 100 enters a school zone – see at least ¶ [0534]; device information 241 may include information obtained by a sensor, such as a GPS sensor – see at least ¶ [0084]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined systems and methods of Nix and Kaufmann to provide for determining that the vehicle is in a school zone, as taught by Cronin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the determination may be used to execute a low-speed driving mode of the vehicle (Cronin at ¶ [0480]).
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights