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 11/06/2025. This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Regarding the objection(s) to claims 1 and 7, the examiner finds applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) acceptable and withdraws objection(s) to the amended claim(s).
Regarding the objection of claim 2, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive as claim 2 should have a colon added as outlined in the previous office action and below.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment, outlined below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2 should read — wherein the processor is further configured to:…—, with a colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aoi et al. (US 20190056732 A1) in view of Yamataka (US 20190110729 A19) and Sen et al. (US 20170313314 A1), henceforth known as Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen, respectively.
Yamataka was first cited in IDS filed 6/13/2024. Aoi was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 1, Aoi discloses:
A monitoring device comprising: (Aoi, FIG. 2; ¶[0110]; ¶[0116]-¶[0120])
a processor configured to: (Aoi, FIG. 2; ¶[0067]; ¶[0209])
determine whether a degree of preparedness of a driver to initiate manual control is a first degree in which manual control of a vehicle is possible, a second degree which is allowed while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control or a third degree [which is not allowed] while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control, based on posture information indicating a posture of the driver, acquired while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control; and
(Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0110]-¶[0113]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0125]-¶[0138]; ¶[0144]; ¶[0165];
Where the automated driving assistance system determines whether a manual driving recovery level, which relates a time for manual driving recovery (determine whether a degree of preparedness of a driver to initiate manual control), is a first level in which manual driving is recoverable immediately (is a first degree in which manual control of a vehicle is possible), a second level which is allowed during automated driving but requires more time for recovery (a second degree which is allowed while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control), or a third level in which manual driving recovery exceeds a predetermined time (or a third degree […] while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control), based on the driver’s face and body (based on posture information indicating a posture of the driver), acquired while the vehicle is performing automated driving (acquired while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control))
provide a predetermined notification to increase the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control, via a notification unit, when it has been determined that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the third degree;
(Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; ¶[0167]; ¶[0147]-¶[0148]; ¶[0014]-¶[0015]; ¶[0034]-¶[0035]; ¶[0151]; ¶[0165];
Where the automated driving assistance system provides an alert to the driver to help prepare for manual driving (provide a predetermined notification to increase the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control), via a sound or display (via a notification unit), when it is determined that the driver is at level 3 (when it has been determined that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the third degree)).
Aoi is silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamataka teaches:
determine whether a degree of preparedness of a driver to initiate manual control is… a… degree which is not allowed while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control, based on posture information indicating a posture of the driver, acquired while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control; and
(Yamataka, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0021]-¶[0022]; ¶[0025]; ¶[0027]-¶[0028]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0035]; ¶[0057]-¶[0064]; ¶[0085]-¶[0088];
Where the vehicle control device determines whether the driver is in a state in which the recovery time, to transition from automatic to manual driving, exceeds the allowed time for automatic driving (determine whether a degree of preparedness of a driver to initiate manual control is… a… degree which is not allowed while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control), based on posture information of the driver (based on posture information indicating a posture of the driver) acquired during the automatic driving mode (acquired while the vehicle is being operated by automatic control))
provide a predetermined notification to increase the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control, via a notification unit, when it has been determined that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the… degree.
(Yamataka, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0021]-¶[0022]; ¶[0025]; ¶[0027]-¶[0028]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0035]; ¶[0057]-¶[0064]; ¶[0085]-¶[0088];
Where the vehicle control device outputs a voice for checking the safety of the driver (provide a predetermined notification to increase the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control), via a speaker (via a notification unit), when the driver is in a state in which the recovery time, to transition from automatic to manual driving, exceeds the allowed time for automatic driving (when it has been determined that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the… degree)).
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 Aoi with the features taught by Yamataka because “During driving of a vehicle, a driver may fall into a condition unable to continue driving (hereinbelow, referred to as an unable-to-drive condition) due to, for example, a sudden illness. A traffic accident caused by an unable-to-drive condition has conventionally been a problem. In order to prevent such a traffic accident, a technique that detects a driving condition of a driver (that is, whether the driver is in an unable-to-drive condition) has been developed” (Yamataka, ¶[0003]). That is, the features taught by Yamataka prevent accidents by detecting when a driver is unable to drive and outputting a voice to check on the driver.
Aoi and Yamataka are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sen teaches:
wherein the posture information includes seat position information indicating at least one of an inclination of a seat back and a position in a front-back direction of a seat cushion of the driving seat in which the driver is seated.
(Sen, FIG. 3: (88A); FIG. 20; ¶[0064], ¶[0117]: seat position detector; ¶[0151]-¶[0152]: determines driver wakefulness based on seat position when switching from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode;
Where the automated vehicle control system includes a seat position detector 88A that determines a driver’s seat position including a reclining angle and a front and rear position (wherein the posture information includes seat position information indicating at least one of an inclination of a seat back and a position in a front-back direction of a seat cushion of the driving seat in which the driver is seated), which is used to determine a level of driver wakefulness for switching from the automated driving mode to the manual driving mode).
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 Aoi and Yamataka with the features taught by Sen because “…when switching to a driving mode in which the vehicle occupant has a responsibility to monitor the surroundings, sometimes there is uncertainty in whether the vehicle occupant is in a state where he/she can monitor the surroundings” (Sen, ¶[0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitations recite a non-transitory storage medium having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above. Regarding the additional limitations recited in claim 8, Aoi further discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a computer-readable computer program for monitoring which causes a processor to execute a process, the process comprising: (Aoi, FIG. 2; ¶[0209]-¶[0210]; claim 14).
Regarding claim 9, the claim limitations recite a method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis, as outlined above.
Regarding claim 2, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 1. Aoi further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to: (Aoi, FIG. 2; ¶[0067]; ¶[0209])
estimate a transfer time required for the driver to be in a state allowing initiation of operation of the vehicle in manual driving mode, after the driver has been notified via the notification unit of a transfer request for transfer from self-driving mode in which the vehicle is driven by automatic control to manual driving mode in which the vehicle is driven by manual control, based on the posture information; and
(Aoi, FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; ¶[0014]; ¶[0034]-¶[0035]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0125]-¶[0138]; ¶[0144]; ¶[0158]-¶[0171];
Where the automated driving assistance system sets a level of the driver, estimating the time required for the driver to take over manual operation of the vehicle (estimate a transfer time required for the driver to be in a state allowing initiation of operation of the vehicle in manual driving mode), after notification via a sounded alert or display (after the driver has been notified via the notification unit) of a switch request from automated driving in which the vehicle drives without driver intervention to manual driving by the driver (of a transfer request for transfer from self-driving mode in which the vehicle is driven by automatic control to manual driving mode in which the vehicle is driven by manual control), based on the driver’s state including the driver’s body (based on the posture information))
determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the first degree when the transfer time is zero, determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the second degree when it has been determined that the transfer time does not exceed a predetermined reference time, and determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the third degree when it has been determined that the transfer time exceeds the predetermined reference time.
(Aoi, FIG. 3; ¶[0129]-¶[0138]; ¶[0003]; ¶[0145]; ¶[0151];
Where the automated driving assistance system determines the driver is level 1 when the driver can assume manual control immediately, shown in FIG. 3 (determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the first degree when the transfer time is zero), determines the driver is level 2 when the driver can assume manual control within 2-10 seconds, i.e. does not exceed 10 seconds (determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the second degree when it has been determined that the transfer time does not exceed a predetermined reference time), and determines the driver is level 3 when the driver needs greater than 10 seconds to assume manual control (and determine that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the third degree when it has been determined that the transfer time exceeds the predetermined reference time)).
Regarding claim 3, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 2. Aoi further discloses:
wherein the predetermined reference time is decided based on time required for the driver to begin operation of the vehicle in manual driving mode after the driver has been notified of the control transfer request.
(Aoi, FIG. 1; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; ¶[0131]-¶[0137]; ¶[0142]-¶[0151];
Where the automated driving assistance system determines the recovery time (wherein the predetermined reference time is decided) based on a time required for the driver to recover manual driving (based on time required for the driver to begin operation of the vehicle in manual driving mode) after notification of the switch request (after the driver has been notified of the control transfer request)).
Regarding claim 4, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 2. Yamataka further teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to estimate the transfer time based on the seat position information.
(Yamataka, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0021]-¶[0023]; ¶[0025]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0035]; ¶[0042]-¶[0044];
Where the vehicle control device acquires physical information of the driver including seat position information indicating a seat position of the driving seat where the driver is seated and the vehicle control device estimates the recovery time for manual driving based on the acquired physical information including the seat position information (wherein the processor is further configured to estimate the transfer time based on the seat position information)).
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 Aoi and Sen with the features taught by Yamataka for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 1. Aoi discloses the third degree as outlined above in claim 1 (Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0110]-¶[0113]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0125]-¶[0138]; ¶[0144]; ¶[0165]). Yamataka further teaches:
wherein the posture information includes an image in which the driver is represented, and the processor is further configured to determine that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the… degree when the driver represented in the image is in a predetermined posture.
(Yamataka, FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 5; ¶[0021]-¶[0023]; ¶[0025]; ¶[0030]; ¶[0035]; ¶[0042]-¶[0044]; ¶[0061]-¶[0064];
Where the vehicle control device acquires physical information of the driver including images from one or more cameras (wherein the posture information includes an image in which the driver is represented), and where the vehicle control device determines the driver recovery time for manual driving exceeds the allowed time (and the processor is further configured to determine that the degree of preparedness to initiate manual control is the… degree) when the driver’s posture shifts a certain amount from a standard range (when the driver represented in the image is in a predetermined posture)).
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 Aoi and Sen with the features taught by Yamataka for at least the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 1. Aoi further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is low based on a state of awareness indicating a degree to which the driver is participating in driving, and
(Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; ¶[0042]; ¶[0116]-¶[0117]; ¶[0125]-¶[0126]; ¶[0132]-¶[0138];
Where the automated driving assistance system determines the level of readiness of the driver to take over manual driving is low (wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is low) based on the driver’s state of arousal, indicated by, for example, looking forward, i.e. participating in driving (based on a state of awareness indicating a degree to which the driver is participating in driving))
provide the predetermined notification to the driver when it has been determined based on the posture information that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the third degree, and it has been determined based on the state of awareness that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is low.
(Aoi, FIG. 2; FIG. 3; FIG. 4; FIG. 5; ¶[0042]; ¶[0116]-¶[0117]; ¶[0125]-¶[0126]; ¶[0132-¶[0138]; ¶[0167]; ¶[0147]-¶[0148]; ¶[0014]-¶[0015]; ¶[0034]-¶[0035]; ¶[0151]; ¶[0165];
Where the automated driving assistance system provides an alert to the driver to help prepare for manual driving (provide the predetermined notification to the driver) when it is determined based on the driver’s body that the driver is at level 3 (when it has been determined based on the posture information that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is the third degree) and the driver’s arousal is low (and it has been determined based on the state of awareness that the degree of preparedness of the driver to initiate manual control is low)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen, as applied to claim 5, above, and in further view of Baltaxe et al. (US 20200231109 A1), henceforth known as Baltaxe.
Baltaxe was first cited in a previous office action.
Regarding claim 6, Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen teach the monitoring device according to claim 5. Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen are silent on the following limitations, bolded for emphasis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Baltaxe teaches:
wherein the predetermined posture includes an arm-folded posture and a leg-crossed posture.
(Baltaxe, FIG. 1; Abstract; ¶[0005]; ¶[0025]; ¶[0032]; ¶[0034]-¶[0035]; ¶[0058]-¶[0059]; ¶[0064];
Where the seat belt determining system identifies a posture of the driver with crossed arms and crossed legs (wherein the predetermined posture includes an arm-folded posture and a leg-crossed posture)).
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 Aoi, Yamataka, and Sen with the features taught by Baltaxe because “…Improving the driving experience, in terms of safety and comfort, is a common objective for automotive manufacturers and users alike” (Baltaxe, ¶[0002]) and “…If, for example, the method determines that the seat belt classification corresponds to “passenger present/seat belt being worn improperly,” such as in step 258, then step 126 may send a visual and/or audible alert to the passenger (e.g., dashboard chime and light, similar to current seat belt warnings) asking them to remedy the situation by adjusting the seat belt, etc. In the context of autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, the method may employ a scalation method that begins with visual and/or audible alerts to the passenger, followed by warnings that the vehicle will stop driving if not remedied within a certain amount of time” (Baltaxe, ¶[0064]). That is, the features taught by Baltaxe alert the driver of a deficiency while autonomous driving occurs in order to improve safety and comfort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al. (US 20180088573 A1) discloses a vehicular awakening system having a drive control section capable of switching a drive state of a vehicle between automatic drive and manual drive; a pressing section capable of pressing a standard position between shoulder blades of a driver; and a pressing control section that activates the pressing section when the drive state of the vehicle is automatic drive or when said drive state of the vehicle is switched from automatic drive to manual drive by the drive control section. Further including an angle detecting section capable of detecting a tilting angle of the seat back in the seat in which the driver sits, and the driver state detecting section is configured so as to be capable of detecting the wakefulness level of the driver when it has been detected by the angle detecting section that the seat back is tilted to a seat rear side from a reference position.
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