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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakai et al. (20210286372; hereinafter Sakai).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai teaches an information processing device comprising (Sakai: Abstract):
at least one memory storing instructions (Sakai: “The computer 2000 also includes a ROM 2026, a flash memory 2024, a communication interface 2022, and an input/output chip 2040” ¶ 85); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Sakai: “The computer 2000 also includes a ROM 2026, a flash memory 2024, a communication interface 2022, and an input/output chip 2040” ¶ 85):
acquire a timing (Sakai: “The content data may include, for example, clock time information, location information and phenomenon information. The clock time information indicates clock time corresponding to the phenomenon information” ¶ 24), at which a mobile object that is configured to switch between at least two driving modes including an automatic driving mode in which the mobile object moves by automatic driving and a non-automatic driving mode, has been switched from the automatic driving mode to the non-automatic driving mode (Sakai: “the broadcast server 40 is configured to acquire the content data associated to the switching point of the automated drive level of the movable object 20, and associated to the clock time for the movable object 20 to pass through the switching point ... the broadcast server 40 is configured to determine the timing for broadcasting the broadcast data of the switch of the automated drive level” ¶ 27, “an automated drive level 0 to an automated drive level 2 may correspond to a driver subjected manual drive mode, and automated drive level 3 to automated drive level 5 may correspond to an automated drive control apparatus 22 subjected automated drive mode” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 32);
acquire sensor information from a sensor that determines a state of an object to be inspected, the sensor being mounted on the mobile object (Sakai: “acquire the predetermined travelling road information determined by the car navigation system included in the movable object 20” ¶ 31, “the setting unit 220 is configured to set the point X4 in the vicinity of a point where a specific spot 390, such as a sightseeing spot or a facility, is located, on the predetermined travelling road 300” ¶ 42); and
transmit to a predetermined host device, mode change information indicating a timing at which the automatic driving mode has been switched to the non-automatic driving mode and the sensor information (Sakai: “the broadcast plan generation unit 240 is configured to set broadcast data 330c for broadcasting the switch of the automated drive level to the occupant 80 within a management unit before the timing corresponding to the recommended switching point X2” ¶ 43, see also ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the non-automatic driving mode is a remote driving mode in which the mobile object is remotely driven or a manual driving mode in which the mobile object is manually driven (Sakai: “an automated drive level 0 to an automated drive level 2 may correspond to a driver subjected manual drive mode, and automated drive level 3 to automated drive level 5 may correspond to an automated drive control apparatus 22 subjected automated drive mode” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a timing at which the mobile object has been switched from the non-automatic driving mode to the automatic driving mode (Sakai: “The broadcast plan generation unit 240 is configured to set one management unit 310 for each of the plurality of periods delimited by the clock time corresponding to the points set by the setting unit 220” ¶ 43), and
transmit to the predetermined host device, second mode change information indicating a timing at which the automatic driving mode has been switched to the non-automatic driving mode (Sakai: “the travelling road identification unit 210 is configured to set the predetermined travelling road based on the destination and the road information, and the setting unit 220 is configured to set the automated drive level of the movable object 20, the recommended switching point X and the clock time for passing through the point X of each spot” ¶ 44, see also ¶ 70, 71).
Regarding claim 5, Sakai teaches the information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a cause of switching of the mobile object from the automatic driving mode to the non-automatic driving mode based on the sensor information (Sakai: “the broadcast plan generation unit 240 is configured to set broadcast data 330c for broadcasting the switch of the automated drive level to the occupant 80 within a management unit before the timing corresponding to the recommended switching point X2” ¶ 43, “The setting unit 220 is configured to generate waypoint information x (x1˜xn) and recommended switching point information y (y1˜yk) based on the information of the predetermined travelling road identified by the travelling road identification unit 210 based on the current location and the destination of the movable object 20 (block 500)” ¶ 46); and
inhibit transmission of the mode change information in a case where the cause is not caused by a state of the object to be inspected (Sakai: “As time passes after switching to the automated drive mode, the information intensity is reduced. This enables useful broadcast data to be provided to the occupant 80 when the attention of the occupant 80 is directed to the broadcast data” ¶ 70).
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, Sakai teaches a non-transitory program recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to execute the steps of (Sakai: “a computer 2000 in which a plurality of embodiments of the present invention may be entirely or partially embodied. A program that is installed in the computer 2000 can cause the computer 2000 to function” ¶ 84):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Kokaki et al. (20200377083; hereinafter Kokaki).
Regarding claim 4, Sakai teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an image captured by a camera mounted on a mobile object as the sensor information (Sakai: “The movable object 20 includes an automated drive control apparatus 22, a broadcast apparatus 24, a communication apparatus 28 and a sensor 29. The sensor 29 includes a radar, a camera” ¶ 25),
...
However, although Sakai discloses of obtaining sensor information as seen in previously recited paragraphs 32 and 42, Sakai fails to explicitly teach perform an object recognition means for performing an object recognition process of recognizing an object appearing in the image, and
transmit a result of the object recognition process to the predetermined host device.
In a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Kokaki teaches, perform an object recognition means for performing an object recognition process of recognizing an object appearing in the image (Kokaki: “The object recognizing device 16 may perform a sensor fusion process on results of detection using some or all of the camera 10, the radar device 12, and the finder 14, thereby recognizing a position, a type, a speed, and the like of an object” ¶ 41), and
transmit a result of the object recognition process to the predetermined host device (Kokaki: “The object recognizing device 16 outputs a result of recognition to the automated driving controller 100” ¶ 41).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the sensor system of Sakai so that it also includes the element of object recognition, as taught by Kokaki, in order to improve driving mode determinizations based on surrounding conditions (Kokaki: ¶ 74, 75, 76).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Mizoguchi et al. (20220204047; hereinafter Mizoguchi).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai teaches The information processing device according to claim 1 wherein the information processing device is mounted on the mobile object (Sakai: “The system 10 includes a movable object 20, a broadcast server 40 and a content server 50. The system 10 is a system for providing broadcast data to the movable object 20” ¶ 21), and
...
Sakai fails to teach the predetermined host device is a control center that remotely drives the mobile object in the non-automatic driving mode.
However, in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Mizoguchi teaches the predetermined host device is a control center that remotely drives the mobile object in the non-automatic driving mode (Mizoguchi: “The base station 4 having the function of a distributed server apparatus is able to, for example, take over and execute a portion of the processing to be performed by the driving support system for the automobile 2, and thus function as one component of the driving support system for the automobile 2” ¶ 62, see also ¶ 101).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the driving system of Sakai so that it also includes the element of remotely driving the mobile object, as taught by Mizoguchi, in order to improve driving support by aggregating information in a control center (Mizoguchi: ¶ 114).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai fails to teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information processing device is disposed in a control center that remotely drives the mobile object in the non-automatic driving mode, and
the predetermined host device is a server that analyzes an image received from the control center.
However, in a similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Mizoguchi teaches wherein the information processing device is disposed in a control center that remotely drives the mobile object in the non-automatic driving mode (Mizoguchi: “The base station 4 having the function of a distributed server apparatus is able to, for example, take over and execute a portion of the processing to be performed by the driving support system for the automobile 2, and thus function as one component of the driving support system for the automobile 2” ¶ 62, see also ¶ 101), and
the predetermined host device is a server that analyzes an image received from the control center (Mizoguchi: “Each of the automobiles 2 is capable of transmitting vehicle information representing the driving condition of the automobile 2 to the server apparatus 3 repeatedly at relatively short intervals of time. Exemplary vehicle information to be transmitted by each automobile 2 include the automobile's driving information, occupant information pertaining to users, or the automobile's surroundings information” ¶ 64, see also ¶ 82).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the information system of Sakai so that it also includes the element of a control center and processing images at a server, as taught by Mizoguchi, in order to improve driving support by processing information in a centralized manner (Mizoguchi: ¶ 62, 63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aoki et al. (20220169298) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of driving mode switching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights