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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 06/16/2026. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GERMANY on 06/22/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 16-19, and 21-30 are pending.
Claims 16, 18, 24, and 30, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15, and 20, are cancelled.
No additional claims are added.
Claims 16 and 30 are independent claims.
Claims 16-19, and 21-30 will be examined.
This second Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Amended Claims,” and “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” dated 06/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to 16-19, and 21-30, have been fully considered and Applicant' s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Regarding Objection to Title, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn.
Regarding Objection to Drawings, the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Objection to Drawings is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the applicant’s response has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s response and amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, and the remarks, “the Office Action misquotes the claim language,” and “the Office Action does not provide a prima facie case of obviousness for previous clam 20,” is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 16-19, and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 withdrawn.
However, the remarks, “Wang does not disclose a control unit that is "further configured to perform, as part of the viewing activity determination, a points allocation and allocate and/or deduct points depending on whether and for how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at the areas of attention; and wherein the attention criterion comprises a minimum number of points which must be at Least achieved as part of the viewing activity determination,” is further considered, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art reference(s) WANG, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) MISU, LAAROUSI, and ROSALES. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
An exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
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:
environment detection unit… to acquire environment information, in claim 16
occupant detection unit… to acquire an image, in claim 16
input unit… for a predetermined input in claim 18
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 22-23, and 25-30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISU et al., US 20230256973, herein further known as Misu, in view of LAAROUSI, US 20230242135, herein further known as Laarousi, further in view of WANG et al., US 20210012128, herein further known as Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Misu discloses an apparatus for operating a vehicle (¶¶ [0034-0039], vehicle autonomous controller 118), an environment detection unit (¶¶ [0024], see also FIG. 2, [0034], [0041-0042], [0051], [0054], [0058-0059], vehicle camera system 110) which is configured to acquire environment information relating to an environment of the vehicle and to generate environment data corresponding to the environment information (¶¶ [0041-0042], [0051], [0054], capture driving scene, and environmental information); an occupant detection unit (¶¶ [0026], [0034], see also FIG. 1, [0043-0044], [0056-0059], eye gaze sensor 112) which is configured to acquire an image including vehicle driver of the vehicle (¶¶ [0003-0005], [0009-0010], [0026], [0030], [0033-0034], [0038], [0043-0047] see also FIGS. 3-4, gaze behavior of eyes, gaze fixation of eyes (i.e. a vehicle driver), eye gaze) and to generate driver image data corresponding to the image (¶¶ [0043], [0057], driver's gaze points, eye positions within vehicle ); and a control unit (¶ [0023], electronic control unit (ECU) 104) which is configured to determine, based on the environment data (¶ [0024], driving scene 200 of the ego vehicle 102 may include a surrounding environment), a driving maneuver of the vehicle which is to be executed by the vehicle within a scope of assisted or automated driving, and to generate maneuver data corresponding to the determined driving maneuver (¶¶ [0041], [0087], vehicle autonomous controller 118, and systems/control units 120, provide one or more driving maneuvers to account for the one or more objects 202, 204, in projected pathway), wherein the control unit is further configured to determine, based on the maneuver data (¶¶ [0041], [0087]), at least two maneuver-specific areas of attention in a field of view of the vehicle driver and at least one maneuver-specific attention criterion which is related to viewing activity of the vehicle driver (¶¶ [0044], [0058], wherein objects 202, 204, are clearly positioned within different areas (e.g. intersection to right, ahead and left, see FIG. 2); to determine, based on the driver image data, as a viewing activity determination (¶¶ [0043], [0057], detect the driver's eye positions within the ego vehicle, to determine the driver's gaze points (i.e. driver image data), [0059], driver's real-time eye gaze as the driver 108 views the driving scene (i.e. viewing activity)), whether and how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at areas of attention (¶¶ [0003-0005], [0026], [0038-0039], [0043-0045], [0056-0063], [0075], [0083], [0089], eye gaze fixation time); to generate viewing activity data corresponding to a result of the viewing activity determination (¶¶ [0003-0005], [0010-0011], see FIGS.4-5, [0022-0033], [0035-0040], [0042], [0044], [0046-0051], [0056], [0063-0085] driver's situational awareness); to compare the viewing activity data with the attention criterion (¶¶ [0027-0028], [0031-0032], [0072-0073], Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value (SEEV), determine probability values that may pertain to a predicted level of situational awareness that the driver 108 of the ego vehicle 102 may have with respect to dynamic objects 202 and static objects 204 at one or more future time steps); based at least on a result of the comparison, to generate a control command for the assisted or automated driving of the vehicle; (¶¶ [0038], SEEV framework may be combined to process the driver object awareness value… and thereby be used as an indicator to autonomously control one or more functions of the ego vehicle 102 to account for the one or more dynamic objects 202 and/or one or more static objects 204 located within the driving scene 200) based on the control command, to control the vehicle (¶¶ [0064], [0086], controlling one or more components of the ego vehicle).
Furthermore, Laarousi teaches an apparatus for operating a vehicle (¶¶ [0058-0059], determination by the system [0069], [0074], 0076], claim 1, automated driving), an environment detection unit which is configured to acquire environment information relating to an environment of the vehicle (¶¶ [0005], [0067], [0077], claim 1, vehicle environment is located in the field of vision of the vehicle user, from sensor data detected by the vehicle) and to generate environment data corresponding to the environment information (¶¶ [0005], [0009-0017], at least one specified object, specified relevant object ); an occupant detection unit which is configured to acquire an image having an illustration (¶ [0036], particularly illustrated gaze vector) of a vehicle driver of the vehicle (¶¶ [0034-0035], [0070-0071], [0076], [0078], driver monitoring camera) and to generate driver image data corresponding to the image (¶¶ [0013-0014], [0028-0032], [0037-0038], [0042-0043], [0046-0049], gaze vector, [0035], [0071], [0078], user gaze, [0064-0065], [0071], gaze frequency); and a control unit which is configured to determine, based on the environment data, a driving maneuver of the vehicle which is to be executed by the vehicle within a scope of assisted or automated driving (¶¶ [0034], [0065] driving operation), and to generate maneuver data corresponding to the determined driving maneuver (¶¶ [0034], operation in automated fashion, [0066], vehicle control, [0069], automated stop), wherein the control unit is further configured to determine, based on the maneuver data (¶¶ [0034], [0066], [0069]), at least two maneuver-specific areas of attention in a field of view of the vehicle driver (¶¶ [0007], [0013-0015] relevant areas (plural), [, [0010], [0060], claim 13, maneuver to front to side based upon road sign, based upon traffic/warning light,) and at least one maneuver-specific attention criterion which is related to viewing activity of the vehicle driver (¶¶ [0028], see also FIG. 1, [0031-0032], lanes); to determine, based on the driver image data (¶¶ [0013-0014], [0028-0032], [0037-0038], [0042-0043], [0046-0049], gaze vector, [0035], [0071], [0078], user gaze, [0064-0065], [0071], gaze frequency), whether and how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at areas of attention (¶¶ [0005], [0008], [0039], [0055], [0063-0064], gaze duration, [0041], how long gaze); to generate viewing activity data corresponding to a result of the viewing activity determination (¶¶ [0028-0032], [0035-0038], [0042-0043], [0046-0049], gaze vector); to compare the viewing activity data with the attention criterion (¶¶ [0017], [0054-0055], gaze behavior analysis of the vehicle user).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu the environment detection unit which is configured to acquire environment information relating to an environment of the vehicle and to generate environment data corresponding to the environment information; an occupant detection unit which is configured to acquire an image of a vehicle driver of the vehicle and to generate driver image data corresponding to the image; and a control unit which is configured to determine, based on the environment data, a driving maneuver of the vehicle which is to be executed by the vehicle within a scope of assisted or automated driving, and to generate maneuver data corresponding to the determined driving maneuver, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine, based on the maneuver data, at least two maneuver-specific areas of attention in a field of view of the vehicle driver and at least one maneuver-specific attention criterion which is related to viewing activity of the vehicle driver; to determine, based on the driver image data, whether and how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at areas of attention; to generate viewing activity data corresponding to a result of the viewing activity determination; to compare the viewing activity data with the attention criterion as taught by Laarousi.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Laarousi for the reasons stated in Laarousi paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method which detects a present situation correctly and requires that objects and/or areas outside of the vehicle that are relevant depending on the situation are seen, and are also perceived for safer vehicle operation.
However, Misu does not explicitly state control unit is further configured to perform, as part of the viewing activity determination, a points allocation and allocate and/or deduct points depending on whether and for how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at the areas of attention; and wherein the attention criterion comprises a minimum number of points which must be at least achieved as part of the viewing activity determination.
Wang teaches control unit (¶¶ [0034-0039], vehicle autonomous controller 118) is further configured to perform, as part of the viewing activity determination (¶¶ [0003-0005], [0010-0011], see FIGS.4-5, [0022-0033], [0035-0040], [0042], [0044], [0046-0051], [0056], [0063-0085] driver's situational awareness), a points allocation (¶¶ [0113], points obtained) and allocate and/or deduct points (¶¶ [0113], points obtained, gazing area) depending on whether and for how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at the areas of attention (¶¶ [0035-0036], [0097], [0099-0100], [0114 [0145-0146], threshold of gazing, respective time threshold, [0126], assessment score (i.e. points allocation)); and wherein the attention criterion comprises a minimum number of points which must be at least achieved as part of the viewing activity determination (¶¶ [0034-0035], ratio threshold of gazing area(s), gazing area No. 1 within any sliding time window is less than or equal to 60%, is the distracted driving/fatigue driving level, [0096-0100], probability that the driver is in distracted driving, and the higher a distracted driving level, [0126-0127], assessment score is reduced by 1 point, assessment score is added by 1 point, [0131], statistical analysis on the attention detection result of the driver).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu the control unit is further configured to perform, as part of the viewing activity determination, a points allocation and allocate and/or deduct points depending on whether and for how long the view of the vehicle driver is directed at the areas of attention; and wherein the attention criterion comprises a minimum number of points which must be at least achieved as part of the viewing activity determination as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Wang for the reasons stated in Wang paragraph [0029], more robust methods and systems to facilitate forward targeted or full-space attention monitoring for the driver, thereby improving accuracy and precision of attention monitoring for the driver. Furthermore, the methods and systems facilitate achieving forward targeted or full-space attention monitoring for the driver, thereby improving precision of attention monitoring for the driver; and accuracy of a monitoring result is further improved in combination with the type distribution of gazing areas.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further attention criterion comprises a minimum time and/or a maximum time during which the view of the vehicle driver must be directed at a specific area and/or at any area of the areas of attention (¶¶ [0038], [0084-0086], driver’s object awareness threshold based upon aggregation of a driver's eye gaze fixation time).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further determine, based on the environment data (¶ [0024], driving scene 200 of the ego vehicle 102 may include a surrounding environment), a position of another road user in the field of view of the vehicle driver and to determine a position of the other road user in an area of attention corresponding to the field of view of the vehicle driver (¶¶ [0024-0025], dynamic objects 202 (e.g., pedestrians, other vehicles, etc.), located at a relative position of the ego vehicle 102, [0047], retrieve the eye gaze data and driving scene data to classify dynamic objects, see also FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further determine, based on the environment data (¶ [0024], driving scene 200 of the ego vehicle 102 may include a surrounding environment), a traffic situation in the environment of the vehicle, to generate traffic situation data corresponding to the traffic situation, and to determine the areas of attention taking into consideration the traffic situation data (¶¶ [0024-0025], driver object awareness value of traffic light, traffic signage, [0047], [0084], driver object awareness value traffic density of the driving scene).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further the environment detection unit (¶¶ [0024], see also FIG. 2, [0034], [0041-0042], [0051], [0054], [0058-0059], vehicle camera system 110) comprises a navigation unit which is configured to acquire and/or receive navigation information relating to the vehicle and to generate navigation data corresponding to the navigation information; and wherein the environment data comprises the navigation data (¶ [0035], [0038], [0040], ECU 104, and prediction application 106, navigating the ego vehicle 102 within the driving scene 200).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further driver image data (¶¶ [0034-0035], [0070-0071], [0076], [0078], driver monitoring camera) (¶¶ [0013-0014], [0028-0032], [0037-0038], [0042-0043], [0046-0049], gaze vector, [0035], [0071], [0078], user gaze, [0064-0065], [0071], gaze frequency).
However, Misu does not explicitly state determine a viewing direction and/or a head pose of the vehicle driver; to determine viewing direction data corresponding to the viewing direction and/or the head pose of the vehicle driver, and to perform the viewing activity determination taking into consideration the viewing direction data.
Laarousi teaches determine a viewing direction and/or a head pose of the vehicle driver; to determine viewing direction data corresponding to the viewing direction and/or the head pose of the vehicle driver, and to perform the viewing activity determination taking into consideration the viewing direction data (¶¶ [0013-0014], [0028-0032], [0035-0038], [0042-0043], [0046], [0048-0049], [0078-0079], gaze direction, gaze vector, claims 15-16) .
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu the determine a viewing direction and/or a head pose of the vehicle driver; to determine viewing direction data corresponding to the viewing direction and/or the head pose of the vehicle driver, and to perform the viewing activity determination taking into consideration the viewing direction data as taught by Laarousi.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Laarousi for the reasons stated in Laarousi paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method which detects a present situation correctly and requires that objects and/or areas outside of the vehicle that are relevant depending on the situation are seen, and are also perceived for safer vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 26 above.
Misu discloses further store the viewing direction data in a memory storage area of the control unit and to determine the areas of attention taking into consideration viewing direction data that is stored in the past (¶ [0046-0047], the storage unit 116 may be configured to store eye gaze data, and access the storage unit 116 to retrieve the eye gaze data).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
However, Misu does not explicitly state determine, based on the driver image data, a characteristic of the vehicle driver which is related to a driving task of the vehicle driver, to generate characteristic data corresponding to the characteristic and, taking into consideration the characteristic data, to generate the control command for the assisted or automated driving of the vehicle.
Laarousi teaches determine, based on the driver image data, a characteristic of the vehicle driver which is related to a driving task of the vehicle driver, to generate characteristic data corresponding to the characteristic and, taking into consideration the characteristic data, to generate the control command for the assisted or automated driving of the vehicle (¶ [0071], user 2 is in a position capable of assuming control , i.e., if they are in a position from which the vehicle user 2 can take over the driving task of the vehicle 1).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu determine, based on the driver image data, a characteristic of the vehicle driver which is related to a driving task of the vehicle driver, to generate characteristic data corresponding to the characteristic and, taking into consideration the characteristic data, to generate the control command for the assisted or automated driving of the vehicle as taught by Laarousi.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Laarousi for the reasons stated in Laarousi paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method which detects a present situation correctly and requires that objects and/or areas outside of the vehicle that are relevant depending on the situation are seen, and are also perceived for safer vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
However, Misu does not explicitly state configured to actuate a display unit of the vehicle in order to display the areas of attention and/or a status of the viewing activity determination to the vehicle driver.
Laarousi teaches configured to actuate a display unit of the vehicle in order to display the areas of attention and/or a status of the viewing activity determination to the vehicle driver (¶ [0055], it can be provided that the specified relevant object O, in particular a road sign, is shown in a display area of an instrument panel).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu to actuate a display unit of the vehicle in order to display the areas of attention and/or a status of the viewing activity determination to the vehicle driver as taught by Laarousi.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Laarousi for the reasons stated in Laarousi paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method which detects a present situation correctly and requires that objects and/or areas outside of the vehicle that are relevant depending on the situation are seen, and are also perceived for safer vehicle operation.
Regarding claim 30, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 16. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 30 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 16. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 16 above.
Claim(s) 17-18, 21, and 24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, further in view of ROSALES et al., US 20210309261, herein further known as Rosales.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further the control unit (¶¶ [0041], [0087], vehicle autonomous controller 118, and systems/control units 120) configured to determine, based at least on the comparison of the viewing activity data with the attention criterion (¶¶ [0085-0089], driver's eye gaze, driver awareness level), whether the vehicle driver is attentive (¶ [0029], situation awareness, [0089], duration of the driver's eye gaze) and to generate the control command such that the vehicle executes the maneuver when the control unit has determined that the vehicle driver is attentive according to the attention criterion (¶ [0029], situation awareness, [0089], level of driver awareness, duration of the driver's eye gaze, may be accounted for during an autonomous or semi-autonomous operation of the ego vehicle 102).
However, Misu does not explicitly state vehicle only executes the maneuver when the control unit has determined that the vehicle driver is attentive.
Rosales teaches vehicle only executes the maneuver when the control unit has determined that the vehicle driver is attentive (¶¶ [0061], [0116], [0125]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu the vehicle only executes the maneuver when the control unit has determined that the vehicle driver is attentive as taught by Rosales.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Rosales for the reasons stated in Rosales paragraph [0019], more robust system and method to ensure safety assurance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and/or any suitable type of vehicle that implements at least some form of an autonomously-executed action or control without human assistance.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, Wang, and Rosales, disclose all elements of claim 17 above.
However, Misu does not explicitly state an input unit of the vehicle, wherein the control unit is further configured to generate the control command in order to execute the maneuver when the vehicle driver has actuated a predetermined input into the input unit after the control unit has first determined that the vehicle driver is not attentive according to the attention criterion.
Rosales teaches an input unit of the vehicle (¶ [0046], braking inputs, throttle inputs, steering inputs), wherein the control unit is further configured to generate the control command in order to execute the maneuver when the vehicle driver has actuated a predetermined input into the input unit after the control unit has first determined that the vehicle driver is not attentive according to the attention criterion (¶¶ [0116], [0125-0127], “driver 502 rapidly regains attention” teaches driver was not attentive, [0153-0153], [0166-0167], [0176-0177], [0202]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further determine environment data (¶ [0024], driving scene 200 of the ego vehicle 102 may include a surrounding environment) and maneuver data (¶¶ [0039], [0087], driving maneuvers to account for the one or more objects).
However, Misu does not explicitly state determine a maneuver focal point in the field of view of the vehicle driver and to determine the areas of attention such that at least one of the areas of attention comprises the maneuver focal point.
Rosales teaches determine a maneuver focal point in the field of view of the vehicle driver and to determine the areas of attention such that at least one of the areas of attention comprises the maneuver focal point (¶ [0061], driving maneuver may be predicted by monitoring the attention/focus of the driver and/or environment).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu determine a maneuver focal point in the field of view of the vehicle driver and to determine the areas of attention such that at least one of the areas of attention comprises the maneuver focal point as taught by Rosales.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Rosales for the reasons stated in Rosales paragraph [0019], more robust system and method to ensure safety assurance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and/or any suitable type of vehicle that implements at least some form of an autonomously-executed action or control without human assistance.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Misu, Laarousi, and Wang, disclose all elements of claim 16 above.
Misu discloses further the environment detection unit comprises an image acquisition unit of the vehicle which is configured to acquire environment information (¶¶ [0024], see also FIG. 2, [0034], [0041-0042], [0051], [0054], [0058-0059], vehicle camera system 110).
However, Misu does not explicitly state an image including the environment of the vehicle and to generate exterior image data corresponding to the image; and wherein the environment data comprises the exterior image data.
Rosales teaches an image including the environment of the vehicle and to generate exterior image data corresponding to the image; and wherein the environment data comprises the exterior image data (¶ [0067], camera images 402, 404 from the inside and the outside of the vehicle, using camera images 402, 404, from the inside and the outside of the vehicle, see also FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Misu determine a maneuver focal point in the field of view of the vehicle driver and to determine the image including the environment of the vehicle and to generate exterior image data corresponding to the image; and wherein the environment data comprises the exterior image data as taught by Rosales.
One would be motivated to modify Misu in view of Rosales for the reasons stated in Rosales paragraph [0019], more robust system and method to ensure safety assurance of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and/or any suitable type of vehicle that implements at least some form of an autonomously-executed action or control without human assistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights