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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to “Objections to the Claims”, the objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In response to “Rejections under 35 USC § 102(b)”, the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
In response to “Rejections under 35 USC § 102(a)(1)”, the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
However, upon further searches and considerations, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (Pub. No.: US 2020/0302233 A1) in view of Yang (Pat. No.: US 12,008,899 B2).
Iwasaki teaches the vehicle includes a communication unit 24c that is configured to transmit information to a server (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019]) but fails to teach the newly introduced limitation “cause the transmission unit to transmit the monitoring information to a device outside of the vehicle”.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Yang teaches a vehicle that is configured to communicate its intended maneuvers to a server/RSU (e.g., intention to pass a vehicle). See abstract and Fig. 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki’s vehicle to transmit the “passable” message to a server/RSU to improve safety.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (Pub. No.: US 2020/0302233 A1) in view of Yang (Pat. No.: US 12,008,899 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki teaches an autonomous driving system (Abstract, automated driving system for a vehicle) comprising:
an external sensor configured to detect an external environment of a vehicle (Fig. 4, external environment information obtainment unit 402, para [0040], “An external environment information obtainment unit 402 obtains outputs from the sensors included in the vehicle 1, such as the cameras 41, the lidars 42, and the radars 43, and inputs them to an automated driving control unit 406.”);
an internal sensor configured to detect a traveling state of the vehicle (Fig. 4, A self-vehicle state information obtainment unit 404, para [0040], “A self-vehicle state information obtainment unit 404 obtains a steering angle, a braking force (a brake depression force), an accelerator pedal position, and the like detected by the sensors included in the vehicle 1, and inputs them to the automated driving control unit 406.”);
a machine learning model configured to receive a detection result of the external sensor and the detection result of the internal sensor as input values and output an instruction value of autonomous driving (Fig. 4, automated driving model 408, para [0040], “Using an automated driving model 408 generated by the training data collection server 200, the automated driving control unit 406 realizes travel control by outputting control parameters corresponding to the input.”);
an operation unit configured to perform the autonomous driving of the vehicle based on the instruction value output by the machine learning model (Fig. 4, steering control unit 410, braking control unit 412, driving control unit 414, para [0040], “In the present example, the targets of control are steering, braking, and driving (the engine or motor), and the outputs for the respective targets of control are passed to a steering control unit 410, a braking control unit 412, and a driving control unit 414. The control units perform their respective controls in accordance with the input control parameters.”);
a user interface configured to exchange information with an occupant of the vehicle (Fig. 2, user interface unit 216, para [0035], “A user interface unit 216 displays image data and the like to an operator, and also accepts an input from the operator.”);
a transmission unit (Fig. 1, communication unit 24c); and
a control unit connected to the user interface (Fig. 2, CPU 211),
wherein the control unit is configured to:
determine at least one risk candidate scene based on at least one selected from a group of the detection result of the external sensor, the detection result of the internal sensor, and an operating state of an occupant of the vehicle (Fig. 6, shows the vehicle detects the object 611 via external environment information obtainment unit 402);
extract at least one of the input values and the instruction value of the machine learning model in the at least one risk candidate scene (Fig. 6, shows the vehicle displays the vehicle’s velocity arrow 622 (analogous to “input value”) and the message “passable” 612 (analogous to “instruction value”));
cause the user interface to notify the occupant of the vehicle of monitoring information including information related to the at least one of the input values and the instruction value have been extracted (Fig. 6, shows the user interface displays vehicle’s velocity arrow 622 and the message “passable” 612.).
Iwasaki teaches the vehicle includes a communication unit 24c that is configured to transmit information to a server (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019]) but fails to teach cause the transmission unit to transmit the monitoring information to a device outside of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of vehicle, Yang teaches a vehicle is configured to communicate its intended maneuvers to a server/RSU. See abstract and Fig. 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki’s vehicle to transmit the “passable” message to a server/RSU to improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwamoto (Pat. No.: US 11,163,304 B2) teaches an autonomous driving vehicle configured to receive external and internal sensors to determine one or more driving trajectories based on the output of a machine learning model.
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 ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685