DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has asserted that the You reference (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0142244) does not teach using the state of the driver as a prerequisite for allowing the handover to proceed, however examiner respectfully disagrees. You teaches determining whether the obtained state of the driver satisfies a switching condition and switching from an autonomous mode to a manual mode in response to determining that the obtained state satisfied the switching condition (You: Par. 24; i.e., the controller 40 may be configured to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle to the driver when the driver is in an acceptable condition to control the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., a condition wherein a forward gaze is maintained)). Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, You teaches each and every limitation as presented in amended claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, “the autonomous driving mode” should read “an autonomous driving mode”.
In claim 7, lines 2-3, “the autonomous driving mode” should read “an autonomous driving mode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by You et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0142244; hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 1, You teaches a method for switching modes for operating a vehicle (You: Par. 24; i.e., the controller 40 may be configured to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle to the driver),
the method comprising: determining, by circuitry of an information processing apparatus, whether a mode for operating the vehicle is to be switched between a first driving mode and a second driving mode (You: Par. 22; i.e., the monitoring unit 30, executed by the controller 40, may be configured to determine whether to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., autonomous driving mode) to a manual driving mode);
obtaining a state of a driver of the vehicle when the mode for operating the vehicle is determined to be switched (You: Par. 22; i.e., the monitoring unit 30 may be configured to monitor a driver's condition to determine when the driver is in a condition to take control of the autonomous navigation vehicle… the driver's conditions may include maintaining a forward gaze direction, a drowsy condition, gazing in another direction other than the forward direction);
determining whether the obtained state of the driver satisfies a switching condition; and switching, by the circuitry, the mode for operating the vehicle the first driving mode and the second driving mode in response to determining that the obtained state of the driver satisfies the switching condition (You: Par. 24; i.e., the controller 40 may be configured to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle to the driver when the driver is in an acceptable condition to control the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., a condition wherein a forward gaze is maintained)),
wherein the first driving mode is a driving mode in which steering control or speed control is operated based on environment information recognized by a recognition section, and the second driving mode is a manual driving mode (You: Par. 22; i.e., the monitoring unit 30, executed by the controller 40, may be configured to determine whether to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., autonomous driving mode) to a manual driving mode).
Regarding claim 2, You teaches the method according to claim 1. You further teaches wherein the first driving mode is an autonomous driving mode (You: Par. 22; i.e., the monitoring unit 30, executed by the controller 40, may be configured to determine whether to switch the control from the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., autonomous driving mode) to a manual driving mode).
Regarding claim 8, You teaches the method according to claim 2. You further teaches determining whether the autonomous driving mode can be started based on the obtained state of the driver, wherein the switching includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the autonomous driving mode can be started (You: Par. 25-26; i.e., when the driver is in an unacceptable condition to control the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., a condition wherein the driver is drowsy or gazes at another direction than the forward direction) … when the failure information indicates software failure of the autonomous navigation system, the controller 40 may be configured to output a signal that instructs software reboot and may be configured to transmit the control signal to the autonomous navigation system; the autonomous driving mode is rebooted and the operating mode is switched to autonomous driving mode based on the driver’s condition).
Regarding claim 10, You teaches the method according to claim 2. You further teaches monitoring the state of the driver and an ambient environment while the mode for operating the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode (You: Par. 22; i.e., the monitoring unit 30 may be configured to monitor a driver's condition to determine when the driver is in a condition to take control of the autonomous navigation vehicle; the driver state is monitored while the vehicle is in the autonomous driving mode, and it is inherent that the ambient environment is monitored during the autonomous driving mode).
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 10, respectively.
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.
Claims 3-6, 9, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You and further in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0033964; hereinafter Sato).
Regarding claim 3, You teaches the method according to claim 2. You further teaches wherein: the determining includes determining an ability of the driver to drive the vehicle based on the obtained state of the driver (You: Par. 25; i.e., the driver is in an unacceptable condition to control the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., a condition wherein the driver is drowsy or gazes at another direction than the forward direction)).
You does not explicitly teach wherein the switching includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be greater than or equal to a predetermined level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches wherein the switching includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be greater than or equal to a predetermined level (Sato: Par. 76; i.e., determines that the driver is in the manual operation acceptance condition when, for example, the degree of driving concentration of the driver equals or exceeds a preset driving concentration threshold; Par. 94; i.e., When the driver condition determination unit 24 determines that the driver is in the manual operation acceptance condition (S12: YES), the vehicle control ECU 2 shifts to normal switch processing of step S13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of You to have further incorporated wherein the switching includes switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be greater than or equal to a predetermined level, as taught by Sato. Doing so would avoid switching to the manual driving mode when the driver is not able to safely control the vehicle manually (Sato: Par. 11; i.e., a situation in which the operating condition of the vehicle is switched to the manual operation even though the driver remains unable to handle the manual operation favorably can be avoided).
Regarding claim 4, You in view of Sato teaches the method according to claim 3. Sato further teaches providing a warning to the driver to change the state of the driver when the ability of the driver is determined to be less than the predetermined level (Sato: Par. 130; i.e., in step S45, the vehicle control ECU 32 of the vehicle control apparatus 31 issues the advance switch notification to the driver using the notification issuance unit 28);
and determining the ability of the driver to drive the vehicle after the warning is provided to the driver (Sato: Par. 131; i.e., in step S46, the vehicle control ECU 32 determines whether or not the driving operation performed by the driver is an inappropriate driving operation using the driving operation determination unit 36);
and switching the mode for operating the vehicle from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode when the ability of the driver after the warning is provided is determined to be greater than or equal to the predetermined level (Sato: Par. 134; i.e., in step S48, the vehicle control ECU 32 switches the operating condition of the vehicle M from the automatic operation to the manual operation using the vehicle control unit 37).
Regarding claim 5, You in view of Sato teaches the method according to claim 4. Sato further teaches causing the vehicle to stop when the ability of the driver to drive the vehicle is determined to be less than the predetermined level (Sato: Par. 76; i.e., when the degree of driving concentration of the driver is lower than the driving concentration threshold, for example, the driver condition determination unit 24 determines that the driver is not in the manual operation acceptance condition; Par. 91; i.e., The vehicle control unit 29 may also evacuate the vehicle M to the evacuation space automatically when the driver condition determination unit 24 determines that the driver is still not in the manual operation acceptance condition).
Regarding claim 6, You teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach notifying the driver that the autonomous driving mode is to be terminated when the mode for operating the vehicle is determined to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches notifying the driver that the autonomous driving mode is to be terminated when the mode for operating the vehicle is determined to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode (Sato: Par. 85; i.e., the notification issuance unit 28 issues an advance switch notification to the driver, for example. The advance switch notification is a notification informing the driver of an intended switch before the operating condition of the vehicle M is switched from the automatic operation to the manual operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of You to have further incorporated notifying the driver that the autonomous driving mode is to be terminated when the mode for operating the vehicle is determined to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode, as taught by Sato. Doing so would make the driver aware of where the switch will occur (Sato: Par. 85; i.e., As the advance switch notification, the driver may be notified that the automatic operation will be terminated in a reference distance of 1 km).
Regarding claim 9, You teaches the method according to claim 8. You further teaches determining an ability of the driver to drive the vehicle based on the obtained state of the driver (You: Par. 25; i.e., the driver is in an unacceptable condition to control the autonomous navigation vehicle (e.g., a condition wherein the driver is drowsy or gazes at another direction than the forward direction)).
You does not explicitly teach prohibiting the mode for operating the vehicle from switching from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be less than a predetermined level.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches prohibiting the mode for operating the vehicle from switching from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be less than a predetermined level (Sato: Par. 76; i.e., when the degree of driving concentration of the driver is lower than the driving concentration threshold, for example, the driver condition determination unit 24 determines that the driver is not in the manual operation acceptance condition; Par. 91; i.e., The vehicle control unit 29 may also evacuate the vehicle M to the evacuation space automatically when the driver condition determination unit 24 determines that the driver is still not in the manual operation acceptance condition; when the driver concentration is lower than the threshold, switching to the autonomous mode is prohibited and instead, the vehicle stops at the evacuation space).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of You to have further incorporated prohibiting the mode for operating the vehicle from switching from the manual driving mode to the autonomous driving mode when the ability of the driver is determined to be less than a predetermined level, as taught by Sato. Doing so would avoid switching to the manual driving mode when the driver is not able to safely control the vehicle manually (Sato: Par. 11; i.e., a situation in which the operating condition of the vehicle is switched to the manual operation even though the driver remains unable to handle the manual operation favorably can be avoided).
Claims 13-16 and 19 are rejection under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 3-6 and 9, respectively.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You and further in view of Desnoyer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9908534; hereinafter Desnoyer).
Regarding claim 7, You teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not teach determining the mode for operating the vehicle is to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode based on a distance to an end of an automatic driving-only lane.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Desnoyer teaches determining the mode for operating the vehicle is to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode based on a distance to an end of an automatic driving-only lane (Desnoyer: Col. 5, lines 33-49; i.e., a step 246 of displaying approaching end of zone, activated by a transition 243 which is validated when the automated system receives a distance value D1 which separates the vehicle from the end of the zone in which the autonomous mode is authorized… The step 246 makes it possible to alert the human driver so that he or she will soon be ready to take back control of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of You to have further incorporated determining the mode for operating the vehicle is to be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode based on a distance to an end of an automatic driving-only lane, as taught by Desnoyer. Doing so would prevent the vehicle from driving autonomously when the vehicle reaches the end of the lane (Desnoyer: Col. 6, lines 39-41; i.e., so as to avoid continuing to travel in autonomous mode outside of the authorization zone).
Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights