CTFR 18/781,863 CTFR 96890 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa (US 2022/0126878) in view of Onica (US 2016/0325740) . Priority The priority date for this application is 01/26/2022. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa (US 2022/0126878) in view of Onica (US 2016/0325740) . As per Claim 1: Moustafa discloses the following limitations: “A processing method executed by a processor to execute a process associated with automated driving of a moving body, the processing method comprising: extracting, from dynamic data embedded in association with traveling points of the moving body on a digital map, automated driving data representing an automated driving state of the moving body at an analysis traveling point and sound evaluation data representing evaluation by a sound from an operator regarding the automated driving state identifying an autonomous-driving maneuver performed by an automated driving system at the analysis traveling point…” Moustafa Paragraph [0061] discloses utilizing sensors to identify a vehicle system status, which would include driving state, which includes a voice recognition sensor “and generating the factor analysis data based on the selected automated driving data.” Moustafa Paragraphs [0179]-[0180] discloses identifying risks and analyzing risk factors when planning a route based on vocal input from a driver and the state of the vehicle. Moustafa does not disclose the following limitations that Onica teaches: “…including an evaluation that the automated driving system has performed a sudden braking, a sharp turn, or a rapid deceleration at the analysis traveling point” Onica Paragraph [0047] teaches a feedback system based on noise provided by the driver about performance of autonomous driving features including braking events. “and generating, based on the automated driving data, factor analysis data that corresponds to the sound evaluation data by of analyzing a causal factor of the sudden braking, the sharp turn, or the rapid deceleration made by the moving body during the automated driving, as the automated driving state at the analysis traveling point, wherein generating of the factor analysis data includes: selecting the automated driving data correlated with the sound evaluation data” Onica Paragraph [0047] teaches identifying the causal factor of events, i.e. asking if a pedestrian was on a sidewalk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Moustafa with the sound evaluation taught by Onica. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by considering user feedback. With regards to Claim 2, Moustafa in view of Onica discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “further comprising displaying risk identification data, which identifiably indicates a risk level based on the generated factor analysis data, in a superimposed manner on the digital map.” Moustafa Paragraph [0090] discloses identifying troublesome sections on digital maps based on handover information gathered in part based on vocal input received from a user. With regards to Claim 3, Moustafa in view of Onica discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses the following limitations: “further comprising, instructing selection of a planned traveling route along which the moving body is planned to travel while the risk identification data is being displayed when generating the digital map.” Moustafa Paragraph [0179]-[0180] discloses planning a route in accordance with the risk factor determined in part from voice information received from a user. As per Claim 4: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. With regards to Claim 5, Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations: “ adding, to the digital map, traveling route data indicating the selected planned traveling route and the risk identification data to the digital map; and providing, to the moving body, the traveling route data and the risk identification data, which are added to the digital map.” Moustafa Paragraph [0090] discloses identifying troublesome sections on digital maps based on handover information gathered in part based on vocal input received from a user. With regards to Claim 6, Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein extracting the automated driving data and the sound evaluation data includes extracting the automated driving data and the sound evaluation data using, as the analysis traveling point, a traveling point of the moving body where a reference parameter that corresponds to a starting criterion of factor analysis in the automated driving data is outside a tolerable range.” Moustafa Paragraphs [0179]-[0180] discloses identifying risks and analyzing risk factors when planning a route based on vocal input from a driver and the state of the vehicle. With regards to Claim 7, Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further discloses the following limitations: “wherein generating the factor analysis data includes generating the factor analysis data based on the reference parameter.” Moustafa Paragraphs [0179]-[0180] discloses identifying risks and analyzing risk factors when planning a route based on vocal input from a driver and the state of the vehicle. With regards to Claim 8, Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations: “further comprising storing the generated factor analysis data in a storage medium.” Moustafa Paragraph [0048] discloses storing data on a storage medium As per Claim 9: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. As per Claim 10: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. As per Claim 11: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. As per Claim 12: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. With regards to Claim 13, Moustafa in view of Onica teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further teaches the following limitations: “the sound evaluation data indicates a content of sound evaluation made by an operator boarded on the moving body on an actual behavior of the moving body, which is performing the automated driving, at the analysis traveling point in a traveling scene.” Onica Paragraph [0047] teaches a feedback system based on noise provided by the driver about performance of autonomous driving features including braking events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Moustafa with the sound evaluation taught by Onica. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by considering user feedback. With regards to Claim 14, Moustafa in view of Onica teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 and further teaches the following limitations: “wherein the traveling scene includes at least one of (i) an existence of an obstacle relative to the moving body, (ii) a state of traffic light involved in traveling of the moving body, or (iii) a type of traveling environment at the analysis traveling point, and the sound evaluation on the actual behavior of the moving body, which is performing the automated driving, includes an evaluation on at least one of the sudden braking, the sharp turn, or the rapid deceleration made by the moving body.” Onica Paragraph [0047] teaches a feedback system based on noise provided by the driver about performance of autonomous driving features including braking events. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that braking events would include traffic light events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Moustafa with the sound evaluation taught by Onica. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by considering user feedback. Related References Shiga (US 2020/0079383) Related to driving evaluation systems. Huang (US 2019/0250620) Related to autonomous drive systems. Breed (US 2007/0005609) Related to vehicular communication systems. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/781,863 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights