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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung et al., 2013/0226408 A1., (hereafter Fung) in view of Kleen et al., US PG Pub 2016/0214483 A1 (using foreign filing date of Oct. 1, 2013) (hereafter Kleen).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Fung to have, “A system for a vehicle [see at least figure 1 where it shows a car and at least paragraph [0100] where it describes “motor vehicle 100”], comprising: one or more memories; and circuitry that performs [at least paragraph [0106] where it cites “electronic memory such as ROM”], when the vehicle is traveling under an autonomous driving mode [at least paragraph [0128, 0131, 0155 & 0162-0163] where they cite cruise control system and this is interpreted as autonomous driving system], operations including: detecting, using at least a sensor [at least paragraphs 0150, 0167 & 0175-0182], an eye status related to opening or closing of eyes of a user in an activity [at least paragraphs 0150, 0167 & 0175-0182], determining, based on driving information indicating driving conditions of the vehicle [at least paragraphs 0106 & 0109-0114], whether the autonomous driving mode is continuable for a period of time [at least paragraphs 0128, 0131, 0155 & 0162-0163], …, based on the eye status [at least paragraphs 0150, 0167 & 0175-0182], ….”
However it is not specifically disclosed by Fung to have their system also, “whether the autonomous driving mode is continuable for a period of time [at least paragraphs 0031, 0067, 0068 & 0078], and when it is determined that the autonomous driving mode is not continuable for the period of time [at least paragraphs 0031, 0067, 0068 & 0078], determining, …, a method of presenting, in the vehicle, a take-over request that informs the user to be a driver that the autonomous driving mode is going to be cancelled [at least paragraphs 0031, 0067, 0068 & 0078 and figures 1-7].” However, Kleen is directed to a device for automatic driving control of a vehicle and as indicated above does teach the feature that are not specifically disclosed by Fung, see above for citations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 2 where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 181 to have their system also have, “the eye status includes a degree of eye opening of the user.” Where paragraph 181 cites, “[0181] In step 606, the response system 199 determines the body state index of the driver according to the eyelid movement. The body state index may have any value. In some cases, the value ranges between 1 and 4, with 1 being the least drowsy and 4 being the drowsiest state. In some cases, to determine the body state index the response system 199 determines if the eyes are closed or partially closed for extended periods. In order to distinguish drooping eyelids due to drowsiness from blinking, the response system 199 may use a threshold time that the eyelids are closed or partially closed. If the eyes of the driver are closed or partially closed for periods longer than the threshold time, the response system 199 may determine that this is due to drowsiness. In such cases, the driver may be assigned a body state index that is greater than 1 to indicate that the driver is drowsy. Moreover, the response system 199 may assign different body state index values for different degrees of eyelid movement or eyelid closure.”
Regarding claim 3 where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 181 to have their system also have, “the eye status includes a duration of time eyelids of the user remain closed in one blink.” Where paragraph 181 cites, “[0181] In step 606, the response system 199 determines the body state index of the driver according to the eyelid movement. The body state index may have any value. In some cases, the value ranges between 1 and 4, with 1 being the least drowsy and 4 being the drowsiest state. In some cases, to determine the body state index the response system 199 determines if the eyes are closed or partially closed for extended periods. In order to distinguish drooping eyelids due to drowsiness from blinking, the response system 199 may use a threshold time that the eyelids are closed or partially closed. If the eyes of the driver are closed or partially closed for periods longer than the threshold time, the response system 199 may determine that this is due to drowsiness. In such cases, the driver may be assigned a body state index that is greater than 1 to indicate that the driver is drowsy. Moreover, the response system 199 may assign different body state index values for different degrees of eyelid movement or eyelid closure.”
Regarding claim 4 where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 181 to have their system also include, “the eye status includes a frequency of blinks of the user.” Where paragraph 181 cites, “[0181] In step 606, the response system 199 determines the body state index of the driver according to the eyelid movement. The body state index may have any value. In some cases, the value ranges between 1 and 4, with 1 being the least drowsy and 4 being the drowsiest state. In some cases, to determine the body state index the response system 199 determines if the eyes are closed or partially closed for extended periods. In order to distinguish drooping eyelids due to drowsiness from blinking, the response system 199 may use a threshold time that the eyelids are closed or partially closed. If the eyes of the driver are closed or partially closed for periods longer than the threshold time, the response system 199 may determine that this is due to drowsiness. In such cases, the driver may be assigned a body state index that is greater than 1 to indicate that the driver is drowsy. Moreover, the response system 199 may assign different body state index values for different degrees of eyelid movement or eyelid closure.”
Regarding claim 5 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen, as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least paragraph 71 to have, “the operations further include: when the user is not ready for manual driving after the take-over request is presented to the user, controlling the vehicle to be parked in a safe place.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least paragraphs 68-67 to have, “the determining of the method of the presenting includes determining, according to the eye status, a degree to which the take-over request is highlighted.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 7 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least paragraphs 68-67 and figures 1-3 to have, “determining of the method of the presenting includes determining, according to the eye status, a timing to start the presenting of the take-over request.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 9 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least figures 1-3 to have, “the determining of the method of the presenting includes determining at least one of (i) a timing to start the presenting of the take-over request, (ii) content to be presented as the take-over request, or (iii) a device by which the take-over request is presented.” The figures of Kleen show the take over request being presented on a screen in the vehicle and the device is the screen within the vehicle as shown in the figures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 10 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 175 to have, “the at least a sensor includes an in-vehicle camera.”
Regarding claim 11 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraphs 110 & 297 and figure 66 to have, “the driving information includes information indicating at least one of a speed of the vehicle, a position of the vehicle, or an environment around the vehicle.”
Regarding claim 12 where all the limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 297 and figure 66 to have, “the information of the environment around the vehicle includes information indicating another vehicle existing around the vehicle.”
Regarding claim 13 where all the limitations of claim 11 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 297 and figure 66 to have, “the activity is an activity unrelated to driving of the vehicle.”
Regarding claim 14 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least paragraphs 3 & 75 to have, “receiving, from a smartphone, operation information that indicates the smartphone is operated by the user; and determining, based on the operation information, whether the activity is unrelated to driving of the vehicle.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 15 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Fung in at least paragraph 181 and in Kleen in figures 1-3 to have, “the method of presenting the take-over request includes advancing a start timing for presenting the take-over request depending on a degree of eye opening of the user or a frequency of blinks of the user.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 16 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least figures1-3 to have, “wherein when the user is watching a screen of a display in the activity, the takeover request is present on the screen.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 17 where all the limitations of claim 16 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least figures1-3 to have, “the display is included in a smartphone, an automotive navigation system or a TV system.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 18 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Fung and Kleen as described above. Where it is further disclosed by Kleen in at least figures1-3 to have, “the method of presenting the take-over request includes displaying a warning prompting the user to stop the activity on a screen of a display in accordance with a degree of eye opening of the user or a frequency of blinks of the user.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 19 which is the corresponding vehicle system claim for control system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above. where it is disclosed by both Fung in paragraphs 106-108 to have control circuitry that can drive the vehicle and Kleen in paragraphs 3, 13 and 79, where they describe a controller (device 2 in figure 7) that controls the autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Fung by the teachings of Kleen, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of vehicle control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Fung, by using a well-known technique to improve a similar device in the same way as taught by Kleen. Where in this instance the modification of Fung whom does not have the feature of displaying to the user that manual control is need for the vehicle as the autonomous control is unsafe to be used at the current time as taught by Kleen. This allows the system to safely hand over control of the vehicle when conditions are not safe for self-driving operation.
Regarding claim 20 which is the corresponding method claim for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13 where applicant claims, “the activity is an activity unrelated to driving of the vehicle.” Where applicants currently claimed limitation is presented in a negative limitation. The use of a negative limitation is permitted as per the MPEP; however, the claim must not end up being ambiguous when constructed using such language. In this instance the claim merely recites what the invention does not include and not what the actual scope is and thus the scope of the claim is indefinite. Thus, for the purpose of compact prosecution the claim was examined as best understood as rejected above. However, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, 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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657