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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because neither the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” nor the “computer program product” are statutory, because they are not either a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims are drawn to a computer readable medium and computer program product having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer readable medium and computer program product can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media or non-transitory computer program product; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium and the computer program product to being statutory would be acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim; US Pub No. 2018/0088577 A1) in view of Konrardy et al. (Konrardy; US Patent No. 11,242,051 B1).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, when a moving carrier is in a traveling state,
from a first sensor of a mobile terminal (paragraph [0265])and second data from a second sensor of a cockpit of the moving carrier (paragraph [0263]);
determining a driver status based on the first data and the second data (paragraph [0267]); and
… when the driver status indicates that a driver is not in a loop (paragraph [0261]).
Kim does not expressly teach controlling…
Konrardy teaches controlling… (col. 24, lines 12-16; col. 47, lines 48-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the driver messaging as taught by Konrardy, since Konrardy states that such a modification would result in alerting a driver to the need to switch from an autonomous driving mode to a manual driving mode.
As per claim 2, Kim in view of Konrardy further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising sending, to the mobile terminal, wherein the first prompt information instructing the driver to take over the moving carrier (Konrardy, col. 24, lines 12-16; col. 47, lines 48-54).
As per claim 3, Kim in view of Konrardy further teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising further sending the first prompt information detecting that the driver pays attention to the mobile terminal (Kim, paragraph [0224]: driver gazing at mobile device; Konrardy, col. 24, lines 12-22: determining a driver is distracted and obtaining the driver’s attention by outputting an alert to the driver).
As per claim 6, Kim in view of Konrardy further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising determining, before controlling the prompt apparatus is controlled to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier, threshold (Konrardy, col. 24, lines 12-22: determining a driver is distracted and obtaining the driver’s attention by outputting an alert to the driver; col. 22, lines 14-35: specify a speed, exceed a speed).
As per claim 7, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a An apparatus comprising:
a computer-readable
storage medium
configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor coupled to the computer-readable storage medium and configured to
execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to:
obtain, when a moving carrier is in a traveling state,
from a first sensor of a mobile terminaland second data
from a second sensor of a cockpit of the moving carrier;
determine a driver status based on the first data and the second data; and
control, when the driver status indicates that a driver is not in a loop,
As per claim 8, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to send, to the mobile terminal, instructing the driver to take over the moving carrier.
As per claim 9, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to further send the first prompt information when detecting that the driver pays attention to the mobile terminal
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to determine, before controlling the prompt apparatus
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 1 above) A computer program product comprising instructions that are stored on a computer-readable medium and that, when executed by at least one processor, cause an apparatus to:
obtain, when a moving carrier is in a traveling state, from a
first sensor of a mobile terminaland second data from a second sensor of a cockpit of the moving carrier;
determine a driver status based on the first data and the second data; and
control, when the driver status indicates that a driver is not in a loop,
prompt apparatus to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the computer program product of claim 13, wherein the instructions , when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to send, to the mobile terminal, instructing the driver to take over the moving carrier.
As per claim 15, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the computer program product of claim 14, wherein the instructions , when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to further send the first prompt information when detecting that the driver pays attention to the mobile terminal
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the computer program product of claim 13, wherein the , when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to determine, before controlling the prompt apparatus
As per claim 19, Kim in view of Konrardy further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the moving carrier is a vehicle (Kim, Fig. 1, Vehicle 100).
As per claim 20, Kim in view of Konrardy further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the loop is the driver paying attention to a driving task (Kim, paragraphs [0260] & [0261]: driver paying attention to a mobile device and not environment around vehicle).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Konrardy as applied above, and further in view of Fields et al. (Fields; US Patent No. 10,935,975 B1).
As per claim 4, Kim in view of Konrardy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising further controlling… the prompt apparatus to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier (Konrardy, col. 24, lines 12-22: determining a driver is distracted and obtaining the driver’s attention by outputting an alert to the driver).
Kim in view of Konrardy does not expressly teach controlling, based on a duration in which the driver is not in the loop.
Fields teaches controlling, based on a duration in which the driver is not in the loop (col. 7, lines 49-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the level of distraction score as taught by Fields, since Fields states that such a modification would result in determining a driver’s readiness to switch to manual operation of the vehicle.
As per claim 5, Kim in view of Konrardy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising further controlling… (Konrardy, col. 24, lines 12-22: determining a driver is distracted and obtaining the driver’s attention by outputting an alert to the driver).
Kim in view of Konrardy does not expressly teach when the driver status indicates that the driver is not in the loop and when detecting an emergency event.
Fields teaches when the driver status indicates that the driver is not in the loop and when detecting an emergency event (col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the switch over conditions as taught by Fields, since Fields states that such a modification would result in operating a vehicle in the safest mode based on detected environmental conditions.
As per claim 10, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to further control, based on a duration in which the driver is not in the loop, the prompt apparatus to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier.
As per claim 11, (see rejection of claim 5 above) the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to further control, when the driver status indicates that the driver is not in the loopand when detecting an emergency
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the , when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to further control, based on a duration in which the driver is not in the loop, the prompt apparatus to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 5 above) the computer program product of claim 13, wherein the instructions , when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to further control, when the driver status indicates that the driver is not in the loopand when detecting an emergency event is detected, control the prompt apparatus to prompt the driver to take over the moving carrier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herman et al. (US Pub No. 2022/0180722 A1): similar inventive concept
Harda et al. (US Patent No. 10,606,263 B2): similar inventive concept
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights