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 Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 12/24/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are cancelled.
Claims 11 and 14-20 are pending for examination.
Regarding the objection(s) to the specification (title), the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification filed 12/24/2025 acceptable and withdraws the objection(s) to the specification (title).
Regarding the objection(s) to claim 20, the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) acceptable and withdraws objection(s) to the amended claim(s).
Regarding the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), applicant’s arguments are persuasive in view of applicant’s amendment to the claim(s), therefore the rejections are now withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 11 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C §103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argued the following points. The examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons outlined below each point.
“The Applicant is amending independent claim 11 to recite the following: 11. A driving assistance system for a vehicle, the driving assistance system comprising:
at least one operating element for manual vehicle control; a training level determination unit which is configured to determine a first training level of a first vehicle occupant and a second training level of a second vehicle occupant; and
a control unit which is configured to:
determine a criticality of a situation in relation to a change from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode,
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned, and
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a lower training level upon assessing the situation as non-critical.
The Applicant is also amending independent claim 19 in a similar manner, and dependent claim 14 for consistency. Support for these amendments can be found at least at claims 12 and 13 and paragraphs [0008] and [0072] of the specification.
The Office Action acknowledges that Yamada does not disclose the features recited in previous claims 12 and 13. However, the Office Action cites Brooks as allegedly disclosing these features, and states that it would have been obvious to modify Yamada in view of Brooks to arrive at the claimed invention.
More specifically, the Office Action states that the time-variable risk profile of Brooks corresponds to the recited criticality of a situation, and that the assignment system 100 of Brooks assigns control of the vehicle based on the risk profile to an operator. The Office Action also states that the assignment system 100 of Brooks assigns control of the vehicle to the vehicle operator with more driving experience after determining that the risk profile is high, and assigns control of the vehicle to the vehicle operator with less driving experience after determining that the risk profile is low. However, Brooks does not disclose assigning "the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned," as recited in amended claim 11. Instead, Brooks discloses that the risk profiles are determined in advance of the trip ( [0061]). Further, Schmid and Dekker fail to remedy the deficient teachings of Yamada and Brooks.”, (Remarks, pages 7-8)
Regarding point a, the previously cited prior art teaches the amended limitations. Specifically, Brooks teaches:
determine a criticality of a situation in relation to a change from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode, (Brooks, FIG. 1; FIG. 5A-C; FIG. 7; FIG. 8; FIG. 21; FIG. 22; ¶[0038]-¶[0043]; ¶[0282]; ¶[0301]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0046]-¶[0047]; Where the assignment system 100 determines a time-variable risk profile, i.e. criticality of a situation, for a vehicle that cannot continue autonomous driving and requires an operator, i.e. a change from autonomous driving to manual driving)
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned, and (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; ¶[0118]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with more driving experience after determining the risk profile is high, above a threshold, and where the risk profile for the vehicle may change during the trip due to unplanned conditions)
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a lower training level upon assessing the situation as non-critical. (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with less driving experience after determining the risk profile is low, below a threshold).
Therefore Brooks teaches the amended limitations in part, specifically the unplanned aspect of the situation criticality.
“The Applicant respectfully submits that claim 11 is patentable over Yamada, Brooks, Schmid, and Dekker at least by virtue of the aforementioned differences, as well as its additionally recited features. Because independent claim 19 recites features similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 11, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 19 is patentable over Yamada, Brooks, Schmid, and Dekker at least for similar reasons, as well as its additionally recited features. Further, claims 14-18 and 20 are patentable over Yamada, Brooks, Schmid, and Dekker at least by virtue of their respective dependencies on claims 11 and 19, as well as their additionally recited features.”, (Remarks, page 9)
Regarding point b, for at least the reasons outlined above regarding the rejection of independent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the rejection of similar independent claim 19 and dependent claims 14-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows.
The following limitations recite a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without a structural modifier:
“a training level determination unit which is configured to determine a first training level of a first vehicle occupant and a second training level of a second vehicle occupant” recited in claim(s) 11.
“a control unit which is configured to: determine a criticality of a situation in relation to a change from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode, assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned, and assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a lower training level upon assessing the situation as non-critical” recited in claim(s) 11.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take each unit as part of a program implemented by a processor using instructions stored in a memory, based on FIG. 1, FIG. 2, and ¶[0058], ¶[0062]-¶[0063], ¶[0049]-¶[0050].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note on Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
For informational purposes only, no action required.
The claims will not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the following reasons.
Claim 11 recites an operating element for manual vehicle control, which is not an abstract idea or additional element as defined by MPEP § 2106.05. In light of the specification, the operating element is an element used for manual control of the vehicle, as claimed, and therefore provides a practical application. Further, the inventive concept of the invention is to assign the operating element to an occupant based on a training level. See ¶[0008]-¶[0009], ¶[0020], ¶[0065]-¶[0067], and ¶[0073] of the specification.
Claim 18, similar to claim 11, further recites changing from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode after assigning the at least one operating element, which is not an abstract idea or an additional element.
Therefore the claims do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yamada et al. (US 20170028987 A1) in view of Brooks (US 20180356814 A1), henceforth known as Yamada and Brooks, respectively.
Yamada and Brooks were first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 11, Yamada discloses:
A driving assistance system for a vehicle, the driving assistance system comprising: (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0043]-¶[0052])
at least one operating element for manual vehicle control; (Yamada, FIG. 3A-C; FIG. 4A-C; FIG. 6; FIG. 9A-C; FIG. 10A-B; ¶[0060]; steering wheel)
a training level determination unit which is configured to determine a first training level of a first vehicle occupant and a second training level of a second vehicle occupant; and (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]; ¶[0076]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer, determines a first driving skill level of a first vehicle occupant and a second driving skill level of a second vehicle occupant)
a control unit which is configured to: (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]; vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer)
[…]
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a higher training level [upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned], and (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer, assigns the steering wheel for a change from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode based on the driving skill levels of the occupants to either the first occupant or the second occupant, i.e. the high skill occupant when available)
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a lower training level [upon assessing the situation as non-critical]. (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer, assigns the steering wheel for a change from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode based on the driving skill levels of the occupants to either the first occupant or the second occupant that has not been drinking, i.e. will use the lower skill occupant if the high skill occupant has been drinking alcohol).
Yamada is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brooks teaches:
determine a criticality of a situation in relation to a change from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode, (Brooks, FIG. 1; FIG. 5A-C; FIG. 7; FIG. 8; FIG. 21; FIG. 22; ¶[0038]-¶[0043]; ¶[0282]; ¶[0301]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0046]-¶[0047]; Where the assignment system 100 determines a time-variable risk profile, i.e. criticality of a situation, for a vehicle that cannot continue autonomous driving and requires an operator, i.e. a change from autonomous driving to manual driving)
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned, and (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; ¶[0118]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with more driving experience after determining the risk profile is high, above a threshold, and where the risk profile for the vehicle may change during the trip due to unplanned conditions)
assign the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a lower training level upon assessing the situation as non-critical. (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with less driving experience after determining the risk profile is low, below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Yamada with the features taught by Brooks because “…the assignment system 100 may have a restriction that does not allow an operator 102 to be assigned to a vehicle system 104 if the current trip of the vehicle system 104 is not scheduled to end (or is not expected to end based on a current location and speed of the vehicle system 104) before a working shift of the operator 102 ends. For example, the assignment system 100 may not permit operators 102 from remotely monitoring and/or controlling vehicle systems 104 for longer than a continuous period of time (e.g., four hours or another length of time) to reduce the possibility of operator error due to fatigue” (Brooks, Yamada ¶[0090]), “…The operator staffing demand can be determined by calculating how many operators 102 are needed for remotely controlling and/or monitoring the vehicle systems 104 based on the risk profiles 304 to achieve an overall acceptable risk” (Brooks, ¶[0109]), and “…conditions may indicate that an operator 102 having specialized qualifications to control and/or monitor the vehicle system 104 may be needed to assign to the vehicle system 104 associated with the risks requiring specialized qualification” (Brooks, ¶[0110]). That is, each vehicle operator, similar to potential drivers in a vehicle, have a limit to how long they can drive without error and the features taught by Brooks allows more skilled drivers to handle riskier situations and less skilled drivers to handle less risky situations, achieving an acceptable overall risk by reserving skilled drivers for riskier situations.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada and Brooks teach the driving assistance system according to claim 11. Yamada further discloses:
wherein the at least one operating element is selected from the group consisting of a steering wheel, a joystick, a gas pedal and a brake pedal. (Yamada, FIG. 3A-C; FIG. 4A-C; FIG. 6; FIG. 9A-C; FIG. 10A-B; Where the operating element is a steering wheel).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada and Brooks teach the driving assistance system according to claim 11. Yamada further discloses:
wherein the automated driving mode corresponds to SAE Level 3 or SAE Level 4. (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 3C; FIG. 4A; FIG. 6; ¶[0007]; ¶[0052]-¶[0053]; Where the autonomous driving control unit 12 performs autonomous driving, allowing the vehicle to run independently such that no driver intervention is required, shown by seats facing away from the direction of travel, i.e. inward; see NPL Self-Driving Cars with SAE levels that define SAE level 3 or SAE level 4 as fully automated, i.e. requiring no driver intervention).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada and Brooks teach the system according to claim 11. Yamada further discloses:
The vehicle comprising the driving assistance system according claim 11. (Yamada, FIG.1; ¶[0041]; Where the vehicle occupant information acquisition device is implemented in a vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada discloses:
A driving assistance method for a vehicle, the driving assistance method comprising: (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0032]; ¶[0043]-¶[0052])
determining a first training level of a first vehicle occupant and a second training level of a second vehicle occupant; (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]; ¶[0076]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10 determines a first driving skill level of a first vehicle occupant and a second driving skill level of a second vehicle occupant)
[…]
assigning at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a higher training level [upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned], (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer, assigns the steering wheel for a change from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode based on the driving skill levels of the occupants to either the first occupant or the second occupant, i.e. the high skill occupant when available)
assigning the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle occupant with a lower training level [upon assessing the situation as non-critical], and (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10, including the autonomous driving control unit 12 implemented by a microcomputer, assigns the steering wheel for a change from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode based on the driving skill levels of the occupants to either the first occupant or the second occupant that has not been drinking, i.e. will use the lower skill occupant if the high skill occupant has been drinking alcohol)
changing from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode after assigning the at least one operating element. (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0053]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]; ¶[0090]; Where the vehicle occupant acquisition unit 10 changes from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode after assigning the steering wheel).
Yamada is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brooks teaches:
determining a criticality of a situation in relation to a change from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode, (Brooks, FIG. 1; FIG. 5A-C; FIG. 7; FIG. 8; FIG. 21; FIG. 22; ¶[0038]-¶[0043]; ¶[0282]; ¶[0301]; ¶[0044]; ¶[0046]-¶[0047]; Where the assignment system 100 determines a time-variable risk profile, i.e. criticality of a situation, for a vehicle that cannot continue autonomous driving and requires an operator, i.e. a change from autonomous driving to manual driving)
assigning at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a higher training level upon assessing the situation as critical and unplanned, (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; ¶[0118]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with more driving experience after determining the risk profile is high, above a threshold, and where the risk profile for the vehicle may change during the trip due to unplanned conditions)
assigning the at least one operating element for the change from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode to the vehicle… with a lower training level upon assessing the situation as non-critical, and (Brooks, FIG. 5A-C; ¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0062]; ¶[0066]; ¶[0071]; ¶[0073]-¶[0077]; ¶[0139]; Where the assignment system 100 assigns control of the vehicle, including an operating element of the vehicle, to the vehicle operator with less driving experience after determining the risk profile is low, below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Yamada with the features taught by Brooks because “…the assignment system 100 may have a restriction that does not allow an operator 102 to be assigned to a vehicle system 104 if the current trip of the vehicle system 104 is not scheduled to end (or is not expected to end based on a current location and speed of the vehicle system 104) before a working shift of the operator 102 ends. For example, the assignment system 100 may not permit operators 102 from remotely monitoring and/or controlling vehicle systems 104 for longer than a continuous period of time (e.g., four hours or another length of time) to reduce the possibility of operator error due to fatigue” (Brooks, Yamada ¶[0090]), “…The operator staffing demand can be determined by calculating how many operators 102 are needed for remotely controlling and/or monitoring the vehicle systems 104 based on the risk profiles 304 to achieve an overall acceptable risk” (Brooks, ¶[0109]), and “…conditions may indicate that an operator 102 having specialized qualifications to control and/or monitor the vehicle system 104 may be needed to assign to the vehicle system 104 associated with the risks requiring specialized qualification” (Brooks, ¶[0110]). That is, each vehicle operator, similar to potential drivers in a vehicle, have a limit to how long they can drive without error and the features taught by Brooks allows more skilled drivers to handle riskier situations and less skilled drivers to handle less risky situations, achieving an acceptable overall risk by reserving skilled drivers for riskier situations.
Regarding claim 20, Yamada and Brooks teach the method according to claim 19. Yamada further discloses:
A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed on one or more processors, carries out the driving assistance method according to claim 19. (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0052]; ¶[0103]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yamada and Brooks, as applied to claim 13, above, and in further view of Schmid (US 20170212512 A1), henceforth known as Schmid.
Schmid was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 14, Yamada and Brooks teach the driving assistance system according to claim 13. Yamada and Brooks teach the control unit structure, as outlined above in claims 11-13 (Yamada, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 5; FIG. 7; ¶[0049]-¶[0052]; ¶[0063]-¶[0065]; ¶[0070]; ¶[0073]; ¶[0076]; ¶[0085]), (Brooks, FIG. 1; FIG. 7; FIG. 8; FIG. 21; FIG. 22; ¶[0038]-¶[0043]). Yamada and Brooks are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Schmid teaches:
wherein:
the control unit is further configured to assess the situation as critical upon determining that there is a first time budget or less for the vehicle occupant to take over vehicle control, and to assess the situation as non-critical upon determining that a second time budget or more is provided for the vehicle occupant to take over vehicle control, and the second time budget is greater than the first time budget. (Schmid, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; ¶[0023]; ¶[0009]-¶[0012]; ¶[0025]-¶[0026]; ¶[0031]-¶[0034]; Where the driving assistance system determines a situation is critical when there’s an amount of time TS is shorter than a threshold amount of time TU for the driver to assume manual control of the vehicle, and determines the situation is not critical when the amount of time TS is longer than the threshold amount of time TU for the driver to assume manual control of the vehicle, where a value above TU is larger than a value below TU; For clarity Schmid teaches a single threshold TU where a value below TU for example TU -1 would qualify as a first time budget or less and a value above TU for example TU +1 would qualify as a second time budget, where TU +1 is greater than TU -1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Yamada and Brooks with the features taught by Schmid because “…During the partially automated or highly automated driving it will become necessary for a driver to assume the control over a vehicle again if a critical driving situation occurs which can no longer be coped with by a driving assistance system for automated driving. In such a critical situation, the driver can, however, often not make a correct decision and actively confirm his driving readiness for the assumption of control of the vehicle by pressing a button or by means of a voice input. Cases may also occur in which although a driver has confirmed the assumption of the control of the vehicle, his manual control processes carried out by him give rise to uncontrolled driving behavior owing to him being unable to cope with the sudden assumption request” (Schmid, ¶[0021]) and “…By means of the method for monitoring automated driving specified below or by means of a driving assistance system for automated driving with a function for monitoring the automated driving, reliable detection of the driving readiness of the driver is ensured in the background while a vehicle continues to be controlled in an automated fashion” (Schmid, ¶[0022]). That is, assessing the nature of a transition from autonomous driving to manual driving allows the driver to be prepared to handle to transition, similar to Brooks and Yamada.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yamada and Brooks as applied to claim 11, above, and in further view of Dekker et al. (US 20170341678 A1), henceforth known as Dekker.
Dekker was first cited in IDS filed 02/08/2024.
Regarding claim 16, Yamada and Brooks teach the driving assistance system according to claim 11. Yamada and Brooks are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Dekker teaches:
wherein the at least one operating element is a steering wheel which is movable perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle from one side of the vehicle to another side of the vehicle. (Dekker, FIG. 1; FIG. 3; ¶[0030]-¶[0036]; ¶[0045]; Where the steering wheel which operates the vehicle is movable perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle from one side to another side of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the invention of Yamada and Brooks with the features taught by Dekker because “…Motor vehicle steering wheels are well known and conventionally comprise a hub to which a steering shaft is attached. Such steering wheels may be adjustable, however, the range of movement is limited. It is desirable to provide a steering wheel with a greater range of movement” (Dekker, ¶[0002]) and “…the steering wheel 20 may be movable relative to the interior trim portion 40 from the first deployed position to a second deployed position in which a second occupant of the vehicle may steer the steering wheel. In other words, the steering wheel 20 may move in a lateral direction 12 of the vehicle from one end of the interior trim portion 40 to another end of the interior trim portion. Control of the vehicle may thus be passed from a first occupant to a second occupant of the vehicle” (Dekker, ¶[0036]).
Further combining the vehicle of Yamada and Brooks with the features taught by Dekker is an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143 A. and Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP §2143 B. For example, the steering wheel of Dekker can be used to replace the steering wheel of Yamada shown in FIG. 10A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foltin (US 20200130546 A1) discloses a method for adapting a position of a seat device of a passenger of a vehicle during and/or prior to a switchover of the vehicle from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode, the method having at least a step of providing, in which an adjustment signal is provided to an interface to a seat device of the vehicle using a transition signal and a position signal, and the adjustment signal causes a change in the position of the seat device from a comfort position to an upright position, and the transition signal indicates or represents an upcoming transition from an automated driving mode to a manual driving mode of the vehicle, and the position signal indicates or represents the position of the seat device of the passenger.
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 Tawri M McAndrews whose telephone number is (571)272-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (0800-1000).
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/T.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668