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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority document (Application No. PCT/JP2022/035245, filed on 04/30/2024) has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2024 and 8/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to application filed 04/30/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding ¶[0013]: The duplication of figure numbers – such as “[FIG. 1] FIG. 1” – should be corrected, for all 15 figures.
Regarding ¶[0031]: The phrase “The term "length" refers to a length of reproducing time, an the term "tempo" refers” is grammatically incorrect. It is recommended to delete “an” and start a new sentence with “The term “tempo” refers”.
Regarding ¶[0093- 0094]: The phrase “the driver or the like may” is missing the commas that provide grammatical clarity. Please change to “the driver, or the like, may”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL-The specification shall contain a written description of
the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which
it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same,
and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor
of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of
the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with
which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth
the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 recites the phrase "optimal output condition" within a limitation. While the claim limitations in independent Claims 1 and 8-10 aim to lead to a final audio output (to get the driver to recognize the need for changing their driving behavior), it is unclear what determines that this final audio output is optimal. How is it determined that one driver should have a sound alert be at 75 decibels, for 5 seconds, and a different driver be alerted with a sound for 10 seconds at 90 decibels? Does a 75 decibel alert only apply to someone who is 16 years old, but not to someone 18 years old? How such determinations are made – corresponding to an optimization process (or tailoring the sound output to each individual driver based on various factors) - is not clearly described in the specifications. The specifications includes only general statement such as:
¶[0119]: “the sound effect optimization output condition identification process for identifying the sound effect optimization output condition in the driver assistance based on the auditory stimulation”;
¶[0129]: “the management server 20 or the driver assistance network system S including the management server 20 of the present embodiment makes it possible to collect the data regarding the actual vehicle behavior in response to the auditory stimulation on the driver, and thus makes it possible to accurately identify the sound effect output condition that increases the behavior stability of the driver to assist.”;
¶[0159]: “the data analysis unit 213 determines the sound effect output condition set to the specific group as a provisional sound effect optimization output condition, and sets new sound effect output control data for behavior analysis based on the provisional sound effect optimization output condition determined.”;
that amount to the optimization process involving the use of a data analysis device to take input data about the driver (and other factors like weather conditions) and determine the “optimal” sound output, without the details of how such a determination is made, other than by gathering and inputting more data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 recites the phrase "optimal output condition" within a limitation. While the claim limitations in independent Claims 1 and 8-10 aim to lead to a final audio output (to get the driver to recognize the need for changing their driving behavior), it is unclear what determines that this final audio output is optimal. No optimization procedure is apparent in the claim limitations. The examiner suggests omitting the word optimal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") – see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are a system, Claim 8 is a vehicle, Claim 9 is a recording medium, and Claim 10 is a method. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101 (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is considered a representative independent Claims 1 and 8-10. The examiner has determined, the following analysis is applicable to each independent claim. With regard to Claim 1:
A driver assistance system configured to assist a driver who drives a vehicle, the driver assistance system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to
execute a data acquisition process including acquiring data indicating a behavior of the vehicle as behavior data while the vehicle is traveling at least in a predetermined section, execute, after the vehicle passes through the predetermined section, a sound effect output control process including performing control to stimulate an auditory sense of the driver by outputting a sound effect corresponding to behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data obtained in the predetermined section, execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect, and execute, when a result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed satisfies a setting condition set in advance, an identification process including identifying the output condition corresponding to the result as an optimal output condition.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. [See MPEP 2106.04(a)-2106.04(a)(2)]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, such an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. But for the additional elements, Claim 1 recites the general idea – readily performed by a passenger in the vehicle – of gathering data to identify that the driver’s performance is sub-optimal and audibly informing/suggesting to the driver to modify their driving performance. Moreover, the passenger can use their best judgement to decide when to not over-react to a low level of sub-optimal driving performance, such as driving a bit too fast, accelerating a bit too hard from a stop sign, etc. Thus, the claim recites a simple process, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a combination of abstract ideas capable of being performed by the limitations of the human mind. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Furthermore, the courts have deemed that implementation of an abstract idea by a generic computer (“the driver assistance system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute”) is equivalent to human performing the abstract idea:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer or processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing underlined additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner contends that:
The additional limitation of “driver assistance system configured to assist a driver who drives a vehicle, the driver assistance system comprising” merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]; and
The additional limitation “one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute” is recited at such a high level of generality as to be the equivalent of a generic computing device on which a judicial exceptions is applied:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The examiner further submits that the aforementioned additional limitations in Claim 1 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above for Step 2A, Prong 2. A vehicle driver assistance system merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. And implementing series of processes (i.e., data acquisition, sound effect output and identification) via processor and memory components falls under the category of “merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea” [MPEP 2106.05(f)], and thus, does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that independent Claims 8-10 include the same limitations as Claim 1 associated with “driver assistance system” (discussed above under Step 2A, Prong 1). Thus, each of these claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constituting an abstract idea under the “mental processes” judicial exception.
Dependent: Claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, with regard to Claims 2-7, the claimed invention is directed to additional abstract ideas under the “mental processes” judicial exception:
• additional data acquisition and data evaluation (Claims 2-3);
• use of judgement to select an option from a list (Claim 4);
• additional data acquisition and data evaluation (Claim 5);
• additional evaluation of driver performance (Claim 6);
• additional evaluation and data retrieval (Claim 7).
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kimura et al. (JP 7585910 B2, henceforth Kimura) and Orchansky et al. "Designing a user interface for improving the awareness of mining vehicle operators", henceforth Orchansky).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura discloses the limitations: a driver assistance system {“send advice to the driver to correct problematic driving behavior, such as sudden acceleration/deceleration caused by sudden acceleration and braking, and exceeding the legal speed limit, if the driver exhibits problematic driving behavior relative to predetermined safe driving operations.”, ¶[0002]} configured to assist a driver who drives a vehicle {“ The present invention relates to a driving assistance device, a driving assistance method, a drive recorder, and a driving assistance control program that provide advice regarding driving operations to a driver.”, ¶[0001]}, the driver assistance system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors {“driving support device 14A, which mainly classifies the driving support control by function in the drive recorder 14. Note that each block does not limit the hardware configuration of the driving support device 14A. If necessary, some or all of the blocks may be operated by a microcomputer as a driving support program.”, ¶[0027]}, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a data acquisition process including acquiring data indicating a behavior of the vehicle as behavior data {“The driving assistance device 14A includes a sensor information acquisition unit 34, and acquires Gryo information (direction information), G information (acceleration/deceleration information…and sends the acquired Gyro information, G information, GPS information, and obstacle detection information to the situation recognition unit 36.”, ¶[0035-36]} while the vehicle is traveling at least in a predetermined section {travel point analysis unit 36A, Fig. 3}, execute, after the vehicle passes through the predetermined section, a sound effect output control process including performing control to stimulate an auditory sense of the driver by outputting a sound effect corresponding to behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data obtained in the predetermined section {audio notification to driver: “The notification may be sent to the driver 24 via the mobile terminal device 24A, not limited to the mobile terminal device 24A, using a voice notification function of the drive recorder 14 or the vehicle 10, or via the cockpit or display of the vehicle 10.”, ¶[0080]}, execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process and execute, when a result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed {Sensor information acquisition unit 34 is constantly feeding data to all elements of Situation recognition unit 36, Fig. 3 and ¶[0035-37]} satisfies a setting condition set in advance {“The priority determination unit 48 extracts risks to be notified to the driver 24 based on the respective scoring results of the behavior-specific scoring processing unit 44 and the location-specific scoring processing unit 46, and sets priorities for the extracted risks. It is assumed that risks are notified to the driver 24, but if there is a notification limit, it is necessary to notify in order of highest priority, and sends notifications of a predetermined number of risks to the advice notification unit 50.”, ¶[0079]}, an identification process including identifying the output condition corresponding to the result as an optimal output condition {interpreted as the final output condition or final output; “To analyze driving operation information and information derived by monitoring the surrounds of vehicle traveling in driving a vehicle and thereby provide advice that corresponds to the driving operation of each individual driver.”, Abstract, and “The advice notification unit 50 executes specific risk consulting based on the received risk, and notifies the mobile terminal device 24A or the like carried by the driver 24.”, ¶[0205]; see also ¶[0080]}.
Kimura does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: execute the data acquisition process {“A broad variety of sensing technology such as lasers, radars, cameras, GPS, brain-wave sensors, RFID and others, can be integrated with supporting information to infer risk factors.”, Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph} and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect {sound effects dependent on risk conditions: “which define a high risk situation. The method for inferring the occurrence of high risk situations is based on the use of a set of rules. Each rule is composed of one or more conditions and an output alarm. Each condition is composed of a variable, a value, and a comparison sign. For example, if we want to evaluate whether the speed of the vehicle is exceeding 40 km/h, then the variable of the condition will be ’speed’, the value will be ’40’, and the sign will be ’>’. This condition can be read as “speed > 40 km/h”. The output alarm defines a distinctive sound and a specific image that can be associated to a particular danger. When all the conditions of a rule are fulfilled, the rule is considered to be active and the alarm of the rule is triggered (the sound is raised and the image is displayed on the screen). Some other examples of variables are the agent’s speed, heading, relative position to other agents, current context, etc.”, Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph}.
Kimura and Orchansky are analogous art because they both deal with vehicle operator safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kimura and Orchansky before them, to modify the teachings of Kimura to include the teachings of Orchansky to enhance vehicle operation safety {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kimura explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute an information acquisition process including acquiring information on traveling environments of the vehicle {travel point analysis unit 36A, Fig. 3, and ¶[0107 & 0245]}, and identify the optimal output condition for a predetermined one of the traveling environments in the identification process {with respect to Fig. 2, Situation recognition unit 36 (which includes travel point analysis unit 36A) provides input data that is analyzed and input into advice notification unit 50”, ¶[0205]; see also ¶[0080]}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Kimura explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the output condition includes one or more of an output timing {“ The time of notification may be before the driver gets off the vehicle during the current driving or before the driver gets off the vehicle during the next driving. As a means for recognizing the communication time, the drive recorder 14 may detect the on/off state of the ignition switch and the locked/unlocked state of the doors, or the distance may be acquired from the short-range communication function between the mobile terminal device 24A carried by the driver 24 and the drive recorder 14.”, ¶[0087]}, a number of times of outputs, a tone color, a volume, a length, and a tempo of the sound effect.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Kimura does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the one or more processors are configured to stop the sound effect output control process and the data acquisition process in the identification process when the result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed is determined to satisfy the setting condition set in advance, execute, when the sound effect output control process and the data acquisition process are stopped, an output condition fixing control process including executing the control to stimulate the auditory sense of the driver with fixing the output condition of the sound effect to the optimal output condition identified, acquire the behavior data based on the output condition fixing control process, and restart the identification process when the behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data acquired satisfies a given particular output condition.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the one or more processors are configured to stop the sound effect output control process and the data acquisition process in the identification process when the result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed is determined to satisfy the setting condition set in advance, execute, when the sound effect output control process and the data acquisition process are stopped, an output condition fixing control process {interpreted as “output condition is fixed”} including executing the control to stimulate the auditory sense of the driver with fixing the output condition of the sound effect to the optimal output condition identified, acquire the behavior data based on the output condition fixing control process, and restart the identification process when the behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data acquired satisfies a given particular output condition {The discussion of using different sound effects for different risk conditions on Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph (see Claim 1 for complete excerpt) sets conditions through the use of rules to provide the flexibility to adapt to changing risk/safety conditions and use a suitable audible alert to alert the vehicle operator; in addition, one skilled in the art will appreciate that data gathering via sensors (Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph), data analysis, and associated computational efforts, may be continuous or intentionally made intermittent, i.e., starting, stopping and restarting data gathering and associated data analysis is well known}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Kimura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, the one or more processors are configured to use, when the identification process is restarted, a setting condition different from the setting condition set before restarting the identification process.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured to use, when the identification process is restarted, a setting condition different from the setting condition set before restarting the identification process {The discussion of using different sound effects for different risk conditions on Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph (see Claim 1 for complete excerpt) sets conditions through the use of rules to provide the flexibility to adapt to changing risk/safety conditions and use a suitable audible alert to alert the vehicle operator; in addition, one skilled in the art will appreciate that data gathering via sensors (Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph), data analysis, and associated computational efforts, may be continuous or intentionally made intermittent, i.e., starting, stopping and restarting data gathering and associated data analysis is well known}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Kimura does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein, the one or more processors are configured to execute, when a number of pieces of the behavior data acquired in the data acquisition process is insufficient, control to acquire additional pieces of the behavior data or a process including correcting the behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data that has been already acquired.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured to execute, when a number of pieces of the behavior data acquired in the data acquisition process is insufficient, control to acquire additional pieces of the behavior data or a process including correcting the behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data that has been already acquired {The discussion of using different sound effects for different risk conditions on Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph (see Claim 1 for complete excerpt) reflects the continuous gathering of information, and continuously adapting the communication with the vehicle driver for any changing risk profile(s)}.
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura discloses the limitations: a vehicle comprising a driver assistance apparatus that assists driving of the vehicle {“send advice to the driver to correct problematic driving behavior, such as sudden acceleration/deceleration caused by sudden acceleration and braking, and exceeding the legal speed limit, if the driver exhibits problematic driving behavior relative to predetermined safe driving operations.”, ¶[0002]}, the driver assistance apparatus being {“The present invention relates to a driving assistance device, a driving assistance method, a drive recorder, and a driving assistance control program that provide advice regarding driving operations to a driver.”, ¶[0001]}, configured to execute a data acquisition process including acquiring data indicating a behavior of the vehicle as behavior data {“The driving assistance device 14A includes a sensor information acquisition unit 34, and acquires Gryo information (direction information), G information (acceleration/deceleration information…and sends the acquired Gyro information, G information, GPS information, and obstacle detection information to the situation recognition unit 36.”, ¶[0035-36]} while the vehicle is traveling at least in a predetermined section {travel point analysis unit 36A, Fig. 3}, execute, after the vehicle passes through the predetermined section, a sound effect output control process for performing control to stimulate an auditory sense of the driver by outputting a sound effect corresponding to behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data obtained in the predetermined section {audio notification to driver: “The notification may be sent to the driver 24 via the mobile terminal device 24A, not limited to the mobile terminal device 24A, using a voice notification function of the drive recorder 14 or the vehicle 10, or via the cockpit or display of the vehicle 10.”, ¶[0080]}, execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process and execute, when a result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed {Sensor information acquisition unit 34 is constantly feeding data to all elements of Situation recognition unit 36, Fig. 3 and ¶[0035-37]} satisfies a setting condition set in advance {“The priority determination unit 48 extracts risks to be notified to the driver 24 based on the respective scoring results of the behavior-specific scoring processing unit 44 and the location-specific scoring processing unit 46, and sets priorities for the extracted risks. It is assumed that risks are notified to the driver 24, but if there is a notification limit, it is necessary to notify in order of highest priority, and sends notifications of a predetermined number of risks to the advice notification unit 50.”, ¶[0079]}, an identification process including identifying the output condition corresponding to the result as an optimal output condition {interpreted as the final output condition or final output; “To analyze driving operation information and information derived by monitoring the surrounds of vehicle traveling in driving a vehicle and thereby provide advice that corresponds to the driving operation of each individual driver.”, Abstract, and “The advice notification unit 50 executes specific risk consulting based on the received risk, and notifies the mobile terminal device 24A or the like carried by the driver 24.”, ¶[0205]; see also ¶[0080]}.
Kimura does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: execute the data acquisition process {“A broad variety of sensing technology such as lasers, radars, cameras, GPS, brain-wave sensors, RFID and others, can be integrated with supporting information to infer risk factors.”, Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph} and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect {sound effects dependent on risk conditions, Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph; see Claim 1 for complete excerpt}.
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura discloses the limitations: a recording medium recording a computer program {“driving support device 14A, which mainly classifies the driving support control by function in the drive recorder 14. Note that each block does not limit the hardware configuration of the driving support device 14A. If necessary, some or all of the blocks may be operated by a microcomputer as a driving support program.”, ¶[0027]} to be applied to a driver assistance system {“The present invention relates to a driving assistance device, a driving assistance method, a drive recorder, and a driving assistance control program that provide advice regarding driving operations to a driver.”, ¶[0001]} that assists driving of a vehicle {“send advice to the driver to correct problematic driving behavior, such as sudden acceleration/deceleration caused by sudden acceleration and braking, and exceeding the legal speed limit, if the driver exhibits problematic driving behavior relative to predetermined safe driving operations.”, ¶[0002]}, the computer program causing a computer to execute a data acquisition process including acquiring data indicating a behavior of the vehicle as behavior data {“The driving assistance device 14A includes a sensor information acquisition unit 34, and acquires Gryo information (direction information), G information (acceleration/deceleration information…and sends the acquired Gyro information, G information, GPS information, and obstacle detection information to the situation recognition unit 36.”, ¶[0035-36]} while the vehicle is traveling at least in a predetermined section {travel point analysis unit 36A, Fig. 3}, execute, after the vehicle passes through the predetermined section, a sound effect output control process for performing control to stimulate an auditory sense of the driver by outputting a sound effect corresponding to behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data obtained in the predetermined section {audio notification to driver: “The notification may be sent to the driver 24 via the mobile terminal device 24A, not limited to the mobile terminal device 24A, using a voice notification function of the drive recorder 14 or the vehicle 10, or via the cockpit or display of the vehicle 10.”, ¶[0080]}, execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process and execute, when a result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed {Sensor information acquisition unit 34 is constantly feeding data to all elements of Situation recognition unit 36, Fig. 3 and ¶[0035-37]} satisfies a setting condition set in advance {“The priority determination unit 48 extracts risks to be notified to the driver 24 based on the respective scoring results of the behavior-specific scoring processing unit 44 and the location-specific scoring processing unit 46, and sets priorities for the extracted risks. It is assumed that risks are notified to the driver 24, but if there is a notification limit, it is necessary to notify in order of highest priority, and sends notifications of a predetermined number of risks to the advice notification unit 50.”, ¶[0079]}, an identification process including identifying the output condition corresponding to the result as an optimal output condition {interpreted as the final output condition or final output; “To analyze driving operation information and information derived by monitoring the surrounds of vehicle traveling in driving a vehicle and thereby provide advice that corresponds to the driving operation of each individual driver.”, Abstract, and “The advice notification unit 50 executes specific risk consulting based on the received risk, and notifies the mobile terminal device 24A or the like carried by the driver 24.”, ¶[0205]; see also ¶[0080]}.
Kimura does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: execute the data acquisition process {“A broad variety of sensing technology such as lasers, radars, cameras, GPS, brain-wave sensors, RFID and others, can be integrated with supporting information to infer risk factors.”, Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph} and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect {sound effects dependent on risk conditions, Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph; see Claim 1 for complete excerpt}.
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura discloses the limitations: a driver assistance method of assisting driving of a vehicle {“The present invention relates to a driving assistance device, a driving assistance method, a drive recorder, and a driving assistance control program that provide advice regarding driving operations to a driver.”, ¶[0001]}, the driver assistance method {“driving support device 14A, which mainly classifies the driving support control by function in the drive recorder 14. Note that each block does not limit the hardware configuration of the driving support device 14A. If necessary, some or all of the blocks may be operated by a microcomputer as a driving support program.”, ¶[0027]} comprising: acquiring data indicating a behavior of the vehicle as behavior data {“The driving assistance device 14A includes a sensor information acquisition unit 34, and acquires Gryo information (direction information), G information (acceleration/deceleration information…and sends the acquired Gyro information, G information, GPS information, and obstacle detection information to the situation recognition unit 36.”, ¶[0035-36]} while the vehicle is traveling at least in a predetermined section {travel point analysis unit 36A, Fig. 3}, execute, after the vehicle passes through the predetermined section, a sound effect output control process for performing control to stimulate an auditory sense of the driver by outputting a sound effect corresponding to behavior stability retrieved from the behavior data obtained in the predetermined section {audio notification to driver: “The notification may be sent to the driver 24 via the mobile terminal device 24A, not limited to the mobile terminal device 24A, using a voice notification function of the drive recorder 14 or the vehicle 10, or via the cockpit or display of the vehicle 10.”, ¶[0080]}, execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process and execute, when a result of the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly executed {Sensor information acquisition unit 34 is constantly feeding data to all elements of Situation recognition unit 36, Fig. 3 and ¶[0035-37]} satisfies a setting condition set in advance {“The priority determination unit 48 extracts risks to be notified to the driver 24 based on the respective scoring results of the behavior-specific scoring processing unit 44 and the location-specific scoring processing unit 46, and sets priorities for the extracted risks. It is assumed that risks are notified to the driver 24, but if there is a notification limit, it is necessary to notify in order of highest priority, and sends notifications of a predetermined number of risks to the advice notification unit 50.”, ¶[0079]}, an identification process including identifying the output condition corresponding to the result as an optimal output condition {interpreted as the final output condition or final output; “To analyze driving operation information and information derived by monitoring the surrounds of vehicle traveling in driving a vehicle and thereby provide advice that corresponds to the driving operation of each individual driver.”, Abstract, and “The advice notification unit 50 executes specific risk consulting based on the received risk, and notifies the mobile terminal device 24A or the like carried by the driver 24.”, ¶[0205]; see also ¶[0080]}.
Kimura does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: execute the data acquisition process and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect.
However, Orchansky explicitly recites the limitation: execute the data acquisition process {“A broad variety of sensing technology such as lasers, radars, cameras, GPS, brain-wave sensors, RFID and others, can be integrated with supporting information to infer risk factors.”, Pg. 1436, 1st column, 1st full paragraph} and the sound effect output control process repeatedly while changing an output condition of the sound effect {sound effects dependent on risk conditions, Pg. 1437, 2nd column, 2nd full paragraph; see Claim 1 for complete excerpt}.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kimura, Orchansky and Wiesenberg et al. (US 2021/0284176 A1, henceforth Wiesenberg).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kimura and Orchansky discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Kimura and Orchansky does not appear to explicitly disclose the limitations: wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute an information acquisition process including acquiring driver characteristic information indicating characteristics of the driver, and identify the optimal output condition for a predetermined one of the characteristics of the driver in the identification process.
However, Wiesenberg explicitly recites limitations: wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute an information acquisition process including acquiring driver characteristic information indicating characteristics of the driver {“The historical record of a specific driver driving through a location with similar characteristics can include information on the specific driver and the locations with similar characteristics”, ¶[0030]}, and identify the optimal output condition for a predetermined one of the characteristics of the driver in the identification process {“In the case of the alert being an audio alert, the risk determination module 145 may determine the volume and/or pitch of the audio alert. In the case of a visual alert, the risk determination module 145 may determine the brightness, color, and/or size of the visual alert. In the case of a haptic alert, the risk determination module 145 may determine the rate of vibration, the range of motion. The risk determination module 145 may determine the driver's driving behavior and select an appropriate intensity.”, ¶[0056]}.
The combination of Kimura and Orchansky along with Wiesenberg are analogous art because they deal with vehicle operator safety by reducing risks from poor driving.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Kimura, Orchansky and Wiesenberg before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Kimura and Orchansky to include the teachings of Wiesenberg to provide a driver with behavior-based vehicle safe-driving alerts {Abstract}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DE 202013010566 U1 - Classifying driver behavior as positive or negative with respect to interactions with surrounding vehicles, with the aim of identifying a “cooperative driving style” {“The method enables a reward of a cooperative driving style by outputting the notification”, ¶[0079]}.
US 2021/0291841 A1 – Identify whether a driver’s driving behavior is prudent or not-prudent and output a corresponding message the driver can visually see; wherein an upbeat message means prudent driving, and a downbeat message is for the not-prudent driving case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665