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, see Remarks, filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims.
No amendments have been made to claim 3. As such, the previous grounds of rejection are maintained.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (hereafter Ishida)(US PgPub 2016/0332569).
Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses a processing system that executes a process for performing
presentation to a driver of a moving object (Figures 1 and 10), the processing system comprising: at least
one processor (Figure 1, Element 168), wherein the processor executes evaluating driving of the driver
using a rule defined by a safety model of autonomous driving (Figure 1, Elements 124, 182, Figure 10,
Element 1012 and Paragraphs 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of
the driver is determined by evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle
speed and distance to hazards), outputting information related to teaching for complying with the rule in a presentable manner to the driver based on the evaluating (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10,
Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the
driver in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle), perceiving a state of the
driver, extracting a causal relationship between the state of the driver and a potential hazard in the
driving of the driver, and classifying a factor of occurrence of the potential hazard in accordance with
the causal relationship, wherein the teaching is teaching corresponding to classification of the factor of
occurrence (Figure 1, Element 184F, Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0050, 0116, 0118 and 0119 where the
determined driver alert level is compared to various driver alert thresholds and classified. The driver
alert thresholds correspond to a likelihood of the vehicle colliding with the hazard).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (hereafter Ishida)(US PgPub 2016/0332569) and in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al. (hereafter Shalev)(US PgPub 2019/0291728).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a processing system that executes a process for performing
presentation to a driver of a moving object (Figures 1 and 10), the processing system comprising: at least
one processor (Figure 1, Element 168), wherein the processor executes evaluating driving of the driver
using a rule defined by a safety model of autonomous driving (Figure 1, Elements 124, 182, Figure 10, Element 1012 and Paragraphs 0030, 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of the driver is determined by evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle speed and distance to hazards), detecting a degree of deviation between the driving of the driver and the rule in the evaluating or separately from the evaluating (Figure 1, Element 184F, Figure 6 and
Paragraphs 0050, 0116, 0118 and 0119 where the determined driver alert level is compared to various
driver alert thresholds), and outputting information related to teaching for complying with the rule in a
presentable manner to the driver based on the evaluating, wherein in the outputting, the information is
output in accordance with the degree of the deviation (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element
1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the driver in
order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle). Ishida does not specifically disclose wherein the safety model being a responsibility-sensitive safety (RSS) model or a safety force field (SFF) model. In the same field of endeavor, Shalev discloses an autonomous driving system where an RSS safety model is applied in the driving environment to ensure safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0384 and 0391).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle driving based on an RSS safety model of Shalev to the vehicle system of Ishida, motivation being to maintain proper, safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects as suggested by Shalev. Furthermore, providing the RSS safety model to Ishida results in a vehicle system where a standardized, well known safety model is established which increases overall system safety. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, Ishida discloses wherein the processor further executes perceiving a state of
the driver, extracting a causal relationship between the state of the driver and a potential hazard in the
driving of the driver, and classifying a factor of occurrence of the potential hazard in accordance with
the causal relationship, wherein the teaching is teaching corresponding to classification of the factor of
occurrence (Figure 1, Element 184F, Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0050, 0116, 0118 and 0119 where the
determined driver alert level is compared to various driver alert thresholds. The driver alert thresholds
correspond to a likelihood of the vehicle colliding with the hazard).
Regarding claim 4, Ishida discloses wherein the processor further executes predicting a scenario
that is predicted to be encountered by the moving object due to the driving of the driver and in which
the moving object falls into an unsafe condition, and the teaching is teaching for causing he moving
object to comply with the rule in the scenario in which the moving object falls into the unsafe condition
(Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual
and audible alerts are provided to the driver in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of
the vehicle. The alerts are provided when the vehicle system predicts a collision occurrence if no
remedial action is taken).
Regarding claim 5, Ishida discloses a processing system that executes a process for performing
presentation to a driver of a moving object (Figures 1 and 10), the processing system comprising: at least
one processor (Figure 1, Element 168), wherein the processor executes evaluating driving of the driver
using a rule defined by a safety model of autonomous driving (Figure 1, Elements 124, 182, Figure 10,
Element 1012 and Paragraphs 0030, 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of the driver is determined by evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle speed and distance to hazards), outputting information related to teaching for complying with the rule in a presentable manner to the driver based on the evaluating (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the driver in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle), predicting a scenario that is predicted to be encountered by the moving object due to the driving of the driver and in which the moving object falls into an unsafe condition, wherein the teaching is teaching for causing the moving object to comply with the rule in the scenario in which the moving object falls into the unsafe condition (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the user in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle. The alerts are provided when the vehicle system predicts a collision occurrence if no remedial action is taken). Ishida does not specifically disclose wherein the safety model being a responsibility-sensitive safety (RSS) model or a safety force field (SFF) model. In the same field of endeavor, Shalev discloses an autonomous driving system where an RSS safety model is applied in the driving environment to ensure safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0384 and 0391).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle driving based on an RSS safety model of Shalev to the vehicle system of Ishida, motivation being to maintain proper, safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects as suggested by Shalev. Furthermore, providing the RSS safety model to Ishida results in a vehicle system where a standardized, well known safety model is established which increases overall system safety. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida discloses wherein the processor further executes determining a
presentation mode of presentation content for performing the teaching based on a result of the
evaluating of the driving of the driver (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062,
0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user at a timing based on the
likelihood of collision and vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 7, Ishida discloses a processing system that executes a process for performing
presentation to a driver of a moving object (Figures 1 and 10), the processing system comprising: at least
one processor, wherein the processor executes evaluating driving of the driver using a rule defined by a
safety model of autonomous driving (Figure 1, Elements 124, 182, Figure 10, Element 1012 and
Paragraphs 0030, 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of the driver is
determined by evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle speed and
distance to hazards), outputting information related to teaching for complying with the rule in a
presentable manner to the driver based on the evaluating (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10,
Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the driver in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle), and determining a
presentation mode of presentation content for performing the teaching based on a result of the
evaluating of the driving of the driver (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062,
0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user at a timing based on the
likelihood of collision and vehicle speed). Ishida does not specifically disclose wherein the safety model being a responsibility-sensitive safety (RSS) model or a safety force field (SFF) model. In the same field of endeavor, Shalev discloses an autonomous driving system where an RSS safety model is applied in the driving environment to ensure safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0384 and 0391).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle driving based on an RSS safety model of Shalev to the vehicle system of Ishida, motivation being to maintain proper, safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects as suggested by Shalev. Furthermore, providing the RSS safety model to Ishida results in a vehicle system where a standardized, well known safety model is established which increases overall system safety. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, Ishida discloses wherein the presentation mode of the presentation content
includes an information amount of the presentation content (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and
Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user
at a timing based on the likelihood of collision and vehicle speed. Various visual alerts are provided to
the user).
Regarding claim 9, Ishida discloses wherein the presentation mode of the presentation content
includes a presentation timing of the presentation content (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and
Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user
at a timing based on the likelihood of collision and vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 10, Ishida discloses wherein when the presentation timing is during the driving
of the driver, a same or similar piece of the presentation content is presented at a time interval greater
than or equal to a predetermined time (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062,
0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user at a timing based on the
likelihood of collision and vehicle speed. Various visual alerts are provided to the user).
Regarding claim 11, Ishida discloses wherein when occurrence of deviation between the driving
of the driver and the rule is predicted, the presentation content is presented at the presentation timing
before a timing of the predicted occurrence (Figure 1, Elements 158, 184C and Paragraphs 0044, 0058,
0062, 0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert is provided to the user at a timing based on the likelihood of collision and vehicle speed. Various visual alerts are provided to the user to aid in
preventing collision).
Regarding claim 12, Ishida discloses wherein the presentation mode of the presentation content
is determined based on comparison between current driving and past driving of the driver (Figure 1,
Elements 158, 184C and Paragraphs 0044, 0058, 0062, 0063, 0064, 0080 and 0081 where the visual alert
is provided to the user at a timing based on the likelihood of collision and vehicle speed. The current
and past driving of the user are compared to the driver alert thresholds).
Regarding claim 13, Ishida discloses wherein in the outputting, the information is output when
evaluation indicating violation of the rule is made (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element 1014
and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual and audible alerts are provided to the user in order to
aid the driver into complying with safety rules of the vehicle. The alerts are provided to the user when
the driver alert levels are high and the vehicle is traveling at a speed to that is too high).
Regarding claim 14, Ishida discloses an information presentation device that performs
presentation to a user (Figure 1, Element 104), the device comprising: a communication interface that is
configured to communicate with a processing system (Figure 1, Element 168) which executes a process
related to a moving object and that is configured to acquire information related to teaching for causing a
driver of the moving object to comply with a rule defined by a safety model of autonomous driving from
the processing system (Figure 1, Elements 124, 182, Figure 10, Element 1012 and Paragraphs 0030, 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of the driver is determined by
evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle speed and distance to hazards);
and a user interface that is configured to present presentation content related to the teaching for
complying with the rule based on the information, wherein the presentation content includes content in
which visual information indicating a scenario that is encountered by the moving object due to driving of
the driver and audio information for providing advice on improving driving in the scenario are combined (Figure 1, Elements 154, 160, Figure 10, Element 1014 and Paragraphs 0080 and 0144 where both visual
and audible alerts are provided to the driver in order to aid the driver into complying with safety rules of
the vehicle. The alerts are provided when the vehicle system predicts a collision occurrence if no
remedial action is taken). Ishida does not specifically disclose wherein the safety model being a responsibility-sensitive safety (RSS) model or a safety force field (SFF) model. In the same field of endeavor, Shalev discloses an autonomous driving system where an RSS safety model is applied in the driving environment to ensure safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects (Figure 19 and Paragraphs 0384 and 0391).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle driving based on an RSS safety model of Shalev to the vehicle system of Ishida, motivation being to maintain proper, safe distance(s) from proximate vehicles and/or objects as suggested by Shalev. Furthermore, providing the RSS safety model to Ishida results in a vehicle system where a standardized, well known safety model is established which increases overall system safety. Such a modification involves routine skill in the art and would have been obvious absent of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, Ishida discloses wherein the communication interface is configured to
communicate with an external system provided outside the moving object, and the user interface is
configured to present the presentation content using information read from the external system (Figure
1, Element 146 and Paragraphs 0070 and 0075 where the GPS navigation communicates with an
external system and displays content to the user).
Regarding claim 16, Ishida discloses wherein the presentation content includes a video in which a face of a pedestrian captured by a camera is processed so as to be blurred (Paragraphs 0042 where the obstacle detection sensor includes a video camera that captures video of proximate objects including vehicles, pedestrians, stationary objects/hazards and the like. Video of a pedestrian is inclusive of the pedestrian’s face).
Regarding claim 18, Ishida discloses wherein the rule further comprises a pre-defined safety envelope in a longitudinal direction and a lateral direction, and the evaluating driving takes into consideration the safety envelope based on an assumption that an other road user applies a safety control action pursuant to the rules that improves safety potential (see rejection for claim 1 and Paragraphs 0030, 0040, 0074, 0079, 0084, 0085, 0116, 0118 and 0143 where evaluating of the driver is determined by evaluating a driver alert level which is determined by detecting vehicle speed and distance to hazards. The detection of hazards is determined with a predetermined safety envelope).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 19 and 20 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
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 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