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
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 8 of Remarks, the applicant argues that Fields fails to disclose “in response to the autonomous driving function not being in an on state, recognizing a
relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead of the autonomous vehicle or to a vehicle travelling behind the autonomous vehicle in another lane and recognizing a distance to a lane line while maintaining the autonomous driving function in a ready state”. Specifically, the applicant argues “First, the cited portion of Fields, i.e., column 3, lines 35-46, merely lists example levels of autonomous driving capability. However, Fields does not disclose that an autonomous driving function is not in an on state but is maintained in a ready state. More specifically, Fields does not disclose recognizing a relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead of the autonomous vehicle or to a vehicle travelling behind the autonomous vehicle in another lane, together with recognizing a distance to a lane line, while maintaining the autonomous driving function in a ready state. Accordingly, Fields, such as at column 3, lines 35-46, does not disclose or suggest the specific operation recited in claim 1 while the autonomous driving function is maintained in a ready state in response to the autonomous driving function not being in an on state. Also, in FIG. 4, FIG. 13 (element 1306), and column 17, lines 17-39, Fields describes
determining an environmental profile of the vehicle. In particular, Fields states that the environmental profile may be based on information received from other vehicles (e.g., vehicle crash information, road hazard information, emergency control reports, traffic density information regarding the road, etc.), information received from an entity monitoring the road, and/or information detected by the vehicle itself (e.g., outside weather and temperature conditions, traffic density, etc.). Fields also describes that the environmental profile may include whether and how many other vehicles on the same road are able to communicate with one another. In other words, Fields merely discloses collecting environmental information such as weather conditions, traffic density, communication capability of surrounding vehicles, crash information, and road hazard information for generating an environmental profile. However, Fields, including both the cited portions and the remaining disclosure, is silent
on recognizing a relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead, recognizing a relative
distance to a vehicle travelling behind in another lane, or recognizing a distance to a lane line,
much less while the autonomous driving function is maintained in a ready state in response to the
autonomous driving function not being in an on state. Furthermore, although Fields mentions "readiness" (see column 8, line 57), "readiness" in Fields refers to a human-centric condition for evaluating whether a human operator is prepared to assume control of a vehicle, i.e., a readiness of a human operator reflecting the operator's personal state. In contrast, the claimed "ready state" is neither a mere standby state nor an evaluation of a driver's personal condition. As recited in amended claim 1, the method includes recognizing a relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead, recognizing a relative distance to a vehicle travelling behind in another lane, or recognizing a distance to a lane line while the autonomous driving function is maintained in the ready state. Accordingly, an embodiment encompassed by the claimed method may enable determining a driver inattention state based on perception data (e.g., relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead or a vehicle travelling behind in another lane, and lane-line distance) collected through the logic operating in the ready state, even when the autonomous driving function is not in the on state. This may also enable precise calculation of an inattentive driving score by comparing ideal driving values computed by the autonomous driving logic with actual driving behavior of the driver, even when the driver directly operates the vehicle without relying on the autonomous driving function. In contrast, Fields merely monitors information of the driver or surrounding environmental conditions. Feilds does not disclose or suggest claimed operating logic to perform concrete distance recognition operations while the autonomous driving function is not in an on state. Accordingly, Fields does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest the features of "in response
to the autonomous driving function not being in an on state, recognizing a relative distance to a
front vehicle travelling ahead of the autonomous vehicle or to a vehicle travelling behind the
autonomous vehicle in another lane and recognizing a distance to a lane line while maintaining
the autonomous driving function in a ready state" as recited in amended claim 1. Accordingly,
Fields does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest one or more limitations of amended claim 1. For
at least the reasons set forth above, claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims 3-9 are neither
anticipated by nor rendered obvious over Fields.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “while maintaining the autonomous driving function in a ready state”. As disclosed in Fields, the vehicle includes multiple driving modes including a purely autonomous mode and a purely manual mode. When the driving mode is in the manual mode state, the autonomous driving mode is maintained in a ready state. More specifically, the vehicle may be switched from the manual mode to the autonomous mode at user and/or vehicle system discretion. Additionally, Fields discloses where the vehicle detects an environmental profile surrounding the vehicle. The environmental profile includes detecting traffic density where the detection is done by the vehicle itself. The traffic density includes proximity/distances of other vehicles relative to the user vehicle which reads on the claimed “recognizing a relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead of the autonomous vehicle or to a vehicle travelling behind the autonomous vehicle in another lane”. Fields additionally discloses lane assist/lane keeping functionality where a distance to a lane line is continuously monitored by the vehicle. As noted above, Fields discloses a manual mode where driving safety features of the vehicle are maintained. Fields is silent with respect to eliminating safe driving features during the manual mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for maintaining such features during the manual driving mode. As such, Fields discloses the argued limitations of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fields et al. (hereafter Fields)(US 10,618,523).
Regarding claim 1, Fields discloses a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle having a
processor (Figures 4, 7, 9 and 13), the method comprising, under control of the processor: sensing an
operation state of an autonomous driving function (Figures 4, 9 and Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line
34 where the autonomous vehicle is determined to be in an autonomous driving mode); setting a driver's driving state criterion based on a result of the sensing (Figure 13, Elements 1302, 1304 and
Column 16, line 54-Column 17, line 16 where a driving capability profile of the driver and human
operator parameters associated with the driver are determined and set); determining a driver
inattention state based on the driver's driving state criterion (Figure 9, Figure 13, Element 1308, Column
14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 and Column 17, lines 40-45 where a driver alertness level is determined);
and displaying, on an instrument cluster, a result of determining the driver inattention state (Figure 7, 9
and Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 where warnings/alerts are provided to the driver based on the
detected alertness level of the driver), and in response to the autonomous driving function not being in an on state, recognizing a relative distance to a front vehicle travelling ahead of the autonomous vehicle or to a vehicle travelling behind the autonomous vehicle in another lane and recognizing a distance to a lane line while maintaining the autonomous driving function in a ready state (Figure 4, Figure 8, Figure 10, Figure 13, Element 1306, Column 3, lines 35-46, Column 10, lines 30-45, Column 13, lines 16-28, Column 15, lines 35-55 and Column 17, lines 17-39 where during a manual driving mode, the vehicle continuously monitors proximate vehicles to determine traffic density on the road. The vehicle additionally provides lane assist/lane keeping detection and operations. During the manual driving mode, the vehicle remains in an autonomous driving ready state).
Regarding claim 3, Fields discloses wherein setting the driver's driving state criterion comprises: in response to the autonomous driving function being in the on state, setting the driver's driving state criterion to a first driver driving state criterion; or in response to the autonomous driving function not being in the on state, setting the driver's driving state criterion to a second driver driving state criterion (Figure 13, Elements 1302, 1304 and Column 16, line 54-Column 17-line 16 where a driving capability profile of the driver and human operator parameters associated with the driver are determined depending on the driving state).
Regarding claim 4, Fields discloses the autonomous driving function comprises a forward collision-avoidance assist (FCA) function, a lane keeping assist (LKA) function, a blind-spot collision-avoidance assist (BCA) function, a smart cruise control (SCC) function, or a lane following assist (LFA) function; and wherein the first driver driving state criterion includes at least one of whether a warning or control occurs by the FCA function, the BCA function, or the LKA function due to a driver changing a movement direction or speed of the autonomous vehicle while the FCA function, the BCA function, or the LKA function is operating, whether the SCC function is canceled due to the driver controlling a brake pedal over a preset reference brake range while the SCC function is operating, or whether the LFA function is canceled due to the driver controlling steering over a preset reference steering range while the LFA function is operating (Figure 4, Figure 7, Figure 13, Element 1306, Column 3, lines 35-46, Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 and Column 17, lines 17-39 where autonomous driving functions such as cruise control, parking assist, lane assist and traffic jam assist are provided. The vehicle displays warnings/alerts to the user based on data sensed by the autonomous driving functions).
Regarding claim 5, Fields discloses wherein the second driver driving state criterion includes at least one of: a criterion of the FCA function, the BCA function, or the LKA function to initiate warning or controlling to perform a corresponding function; a criterion of the LFA function to initiate controlling to keep a center of the lane on a road; or a criterion of the SCC function to initiate controlling to maintain a distance to a vehicle ahead (Figure 4, Figure 7, Figure 13, Element 1306, Column 3, lines 35-46, Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 and Column 17, lines 17-39 where autonomous driving functions such as cruise control, parking assist, lane assist and traffic jam assist are provided. The vehicle displays warnings/alerts to the user based on data sensed by the autonomous driving functions).
Regarding claim 6, Fields discloses wherein the criterion of the LFA function to initiate controlling to keep the center of the lane comprises one of: whether the autonomous vehicle makes a sharp turn with steering that is greater than a curvature of a straight or curved road on which the autonomous vehicle is driving; whether, while driving with steering less than a curvature of a curved road on which the autonomous vehicle is driving, the autonomous vehicle changes the steering to greater steering; or whether, although the autonomous vehicle is positioned at the center of the lane, the driver steers a number of times over a preset reference number (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 13, Element 1306, Column 3, lines 35-46, Column 10, lines 30-45, Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 and Column 17, lines 17-39 where autonomous driving functions such as cruise control, parking assist, lane assist and traffic jam assist are provided. The vehicle displays warnings/alerts to the user based on data sensed by the autonomous driving functions and detects proper lane keeping by the driver).
Regarding claim 7, Fields discloses wherein the criterion of the SCC function to initiate controlling to maintain the distance to the vehicle ahead of the autonomous vehicle comprises one of: whether a deviation of a maintained distance to the vehicle ahead is greater than a preset value; whether the autonomous vehicle decelerates with a deceleration greater than a preset value even in the absence of the vehicle ahead; or whether the autonomous vehicle decelerates with the deceleration in a situation where the distance to the vehicle ahead is greater than a preset maintained distance and there is no change in acceleration of the vehicle ahead (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 7, Figure 13, Element 1306, Column 3, lines 35-46, Column 10, lines 30-45, Column 14, line 6-Column 15, line 34 and Column 17, lines 17-39 where autonomous driving functions such as cruise control, parking assist, lane assist and traffic jam assist are provided. The vehicle displays warnings/alerts to the user based on data sensed by the autonomous driving functions. The cruise control function monitors a distance to a preceding vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Fields discloses wherein determining the driver inattention state comprises, under the control of the processor: in response to departing from the first driver driving state criterion or the second driver driving state criterion, calculating an inattentive driving score; accumulating the calculated inattentive driving score; and applying the accumulated inattentive driving score to a plurality of preset reference risk levels to determine the driver inattention state (Figure 13 and Column 16, line 54-Column 17, line 65 and claim 14 where a driver’s alertness score is updated).
Regarding claim 9, Fields discloses wherein determining the driver inattention state further comprises, under the control of the processor: in response to not departing from the first driver driving state criterion or the second driver driving state criterion during a preset reference driving time, decreasing by a score from the accumulated inattentive driving score (Figure 13 and Column 16, line 54-Column 17, line 65 and claim 14 where the driver’s alertness score is updated and represents an alertness level of the driver).
Regarding claim 10, see rejection for claim 1 which discloses all of the claimed limitations.
Apparatus claims 11 and 13-19 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1 and 3-9. Therefore apparatus claims 11 and 13-19 correspond to method claims 1 and 3-9 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS D ALUNKAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS D ALUNKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights