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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 19/105,583 filed on 02/21/2025.
Claims 1 – 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 02/21/2025 have been received and considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words long. Currently it is 179 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 7 -9 states: “an operation reception unit that receives an operation instruction uttered by the driver when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and”, however lines 5 – 6 states the voice acquisition unit acquires “voice information”. Currently the claim is unclear if the “voice information” and the “voice” are the same limitations. Claims 18 and 19 state the same limitations of the “voice information” and the “voice”, therefore are objected under the same pretenses. Claims 2 - 17 are also objected per their dependency on the objected claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“line-of-sight acquisition unit” in claims 1, 18 and 19.
“line-of-sight detection unit” in claims 1, 18 and 19.
“voice acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 19.
“sound collection unit” in claims 1, 18 and 19.
“operation reception unit” in claims 1 – 4.
“risk level calculation unit” in claims 1 – 17 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 – 19 are 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.
Claim limitation of claims 1 and 19 state: “information processing apparatus comprising: a line-of-sight acquisition unit… a line-of-sight detection unit… a voice acquisition unit… an operation reception unit… a risk level calculation unit” and claim limitation of claim 18 state: “line-of-sight detection unit”, “a line-of-sight acquisition unit” and “sound collection unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. All of these specified units are indefinite in context of the claim as they do not provide any structural composition of these units that allow them to perform their function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 states: “a risk level calculation unit that calculates a risk level of a vehicle driven by the driver and surroundings of the vehicle,”, however it is indefinite on how the risk level calculation is done. For example, what are the factors of the vehicle which are incorporated within the risk calculation. This claim will be interpreted as the risk level being determined based on the driver and the surroundings of the vehicle. Claims 18 and 19 state similar claim limitations and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 2 - 17 are also rejected per their dependency of the rejected claims.
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 – 4, 13 – 15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US 20200139992 A1), further in view of Woo et al. (US 20190066680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oba teaches an information processing method comprising:
a line-of-sight acquisition step of acquiring line-of- sight information of a driver from a line-of-sight detection unit that detects a line of sight of the driver; (Oba: Paragraph 0075: “The driver monitoring section 26 includes a driver image capturing section 101, a biological information acquisition section 102, a line-of-vision detection section 103, an authentication section 104.”)
a voice acquisition step of acquiring voice information of the driver from a sound collection unit; (Oba: Paragraph 0156: “The voice recognition switching determination section 203 causes the driver to make recognition and judgment and causes the driving state detection section 142 to detect the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver on the basis of a voice response of the driver.”; Paragraph 0052: “The input section 24 includes input devices such as a microphone, a button, a switch, a touch panel, a direction indicator, and a gesture recognition device.”)
an operation reception step of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver (Oba: Paragraph 0159: “The voice recognition switching determination section 203 determines the return internal state of the driver on the basis of a detection result by the driving state detection section 142, thereby determining whether the driving mode can be switched from the autonomous driving mode to the manual driving mode.”)
… a risk level calculation step of calculating a risk level of a vehicle driven by the driver and surroundings of the vehicle, (Oba: Paragraph 0096: “The surrounding monitoring section 121 monitors surroundings of the vehicle on the basis of surrounding images from the surrounding image capturing section 21, surrounding information from the surrounding information acquisition section 22, and various kinds of information from the communication section 27.”; Paragraph 0097: “The driver monitoring section 122 monitors the driver on the basis of vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition section 25, the driver image from the driver image capturing section 101, driver's biological information from the biological information acquisition section 102, the detection result by the line-of-vision detection section 103, the authentication result by the authentication section 104, a learning result by the learning section 126, and the like. The driver monitoring section 122 includes a driving behavior analysis section 141 and a driving state detection section 142.”; Paragraph 0265: “Specifically, the autonomous level setting section 152 sets a distribution of permitted autonomous levels (hereinafter, referred to as “permitted autonomous levels”) on the running route on the basis of the map information, the surrounding information, and the like.”; Paragraphs 0309 – 0311: “In Step S11, the driving mode switching control section 154 controls the communication section 27 to acquire the LDM in the section approached by the vehicle with reference to the current position of the vehicle on the running route and to update the LDM. In Step S12, the driving mode switching control section 154 confirms the LDM and the driver state. The driver state confirmed herein includes a situation of driver's executing secondary tasks, and the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver. It is noted that the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver are confirmed on the basis of the detection result by the driving state detection section 142. It is noted herein the autonomous level possibly changes with a change in a situation of the running route or the driver with passage of time. The driving mode switching control section 154 needs to acquire new information during running and to always continue to monitor the running route and the driver.”
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle surroundings and the driver state (based on detection results per the voice recognition switching determination section and driving state detection section), to determine what autonomous function to drive the vehicle in. This is interpreted as calculating the risk as both the surrounding information and driver awareness adjusts the autonomous function)
… while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and (Oba: Paragraph 0081: “The line-of-vision detection section 103 evaluates a degree of attention of the driver to and a degree of awakening of the driver by performing line-of-vision dynamic analysis. The degree of awakening is a degree that represents a conscious state of the driver. For example, the degree of awakening higher than a predetermined threshold represents that consciousness of the driver is normal. The line-of-vision detection section 103 supplies a detection result of the line of vision and an analysis result of the degree of attention and the like to the vehicle control section 28.”)
… when the risk level calculated in the risk level calculation step is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold (Oba: Paragraph 0408: “For example, in a case in which the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver are lower than values set as thresholds in advance, the driver is determined in the awakening decline state. In a case in which the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver are higher than the values set as the thresholds in advance, the driver is determined not in the awakening decline state.”; Paragraphs 0411 – 0413: “In a case in which it is determined in Step S19 that the driver is in the awakening decline state, the process goes to Step S20. In Step S20, the driving mode switching control section 154 causes notification to be made to the driver that the driving mode is switched over to the manual driving mode. The notification that the driving mode is switched over to the manual driving mode is to notify the driver that the autonomous driving mode is switched over to the manual driving mode, and the notification is issued under control of, for example, the notification control section 124. For example, the display section 29 displays a notification screen or the like for attention calling within the field of vision of the driver under control of the notification control section 124. In a case in which the driver is operating the mobile terminal 12, the notification screen or the like may be displayed on the screen of the mobile terminal 12.”).
In sum, Oba teaches an information processing method comprising: a line-of-sight acquisition step of acquiring line-of- sight information of a driver from a line-of-sight detection unit that detects a line of sight of the driver; a voice acquisition step of acquiring voice information of the driver from a sound collection unit; an operation reception step of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver a risk level calculation step of calculating a risk level of a vehicle driven by the driver and surroundings of the vehicle, while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and when the risk level calculated in the risk level calculation step is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold. Oba however does not teach when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and wherein the operation reception step has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver which disables the wake word omission function.
Woo teaches when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and (Woo: Paragraph 0013: “The memory stores instructions, and the instructions are configured to cause the processor, when executed, to receive at least one main wake word through the microphone, in response to the received main wake word, activate a voice recognition function provided from an external server or implemented in the electronic device, receive a user's speech including at least one user wake word through the microphone, and activate the voice recognition function in response to the received user wake word without the main wake word.”)
… wherein the operation reception step has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver (Woo: Paragraph 0010: “The wake word may be preset in the electronic device, and may be changed or configured. That is, when the user continuously attempts the voice command for a predetermined time or exceeds the predetermined time, the user may experience inconvenience in that the user can only attempt the voice command after first speaking the wake word.”; Paragraph 0013: “The memory stores instructions, and the instructions are configured to cause the processor, when executed, to receive at least one main wake word through the microphone, in response to the received main wake word, activate a voice recognition function provided from an external server or implemented in the electronic device, receive a user's speech including at least one user wake word through the microphone, and activate the voice recognition function in response to the received user wake word without the main wake word.”; Paragraph 0073: “For example, “bus”, “subway”, “traffic information”, and “bus stop” may be stored as the wake words between 7 and 8 a.m. and “lunch”, “menu”, “restaurant”, and “famous restaurant” may be stored as the user wake words between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. When the current time is 7:10 in the morning, the wake word control module 215 may enable the user wake words such as “bus”, “subway”, “traffic information”, and “bus stop”. Further, the wake word control module 215 may disable user wake words such as “lunch”, “menu”, “restaurant”, and “famous restaurant”. The wake word control module 215 may determine whether the current condition expires and, when the current condition expires, disable the user wake words corresponding to the current condition. When a user wake word corresponding to the current condition is enabled, in addition to the main wake word, the wake word detection module 211 may detect the user wake word corresponding to the current condition as a user wake word. When the user wake word corresponding to the current condition is enabled, the wake word detection module 211 may detect only the main wake word as the wake word if the user speaks.”)
… disables the wake word omission function (Woo: Paragraph 0010: “The wake word may be preset in the electronic device, and may be changed or configured. That is, when the user continuously attempts the voice command for a predetermined time or exceeds the predetermined time, the user may experience inconvenience in that the user can only attempt the voice command after first speaking the wake word.”; Paragraph 0013: “The memory stores instructions, and the instructions are configured to cause the processor, when executed, to receive at least one main wake word through the microphone, in response to the received main wake word, activate a voice recognition function provided from an external server or implemented in the electronic device, receive a user's speech including at least one user wake word through the microphone, and activate the voice recognition function in response to the received user wake word without the main wake word.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Woo with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba teaches the ability of determining the driving state of a driver by, not limited to, their line of vision evaluation and voice response evaluation. The driving state of the driver results in changes to the autonomous driving function as cited above. Woo teaches the ability of a vehicle able to detect a wake word while further determining what wake words to omit under certain situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Woo as obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Oba as it increases the safety of the passengers in the vehicle. For example, the driving state detection section of Oba can now detect the driving state of the driver to further determine whether a wake word is to be omitted in a voice command. This increases the safety of the passenger as if the passenger is an awakening decline state, the omission of a wake word allows the driver to state the full phrase to control the autonomous driving function. Oba already teaches the voice response of the driver are also evaluated, therefore in combination with the line of vision evaluation, the system will be able to determine the state of the driver and require them to state the wake word to increase driver awareness and in turn increase safety of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein when the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit is not equal to or higher than the threshold, (Oba: Paragraph 0408; Paragraphs 0411 – 0413,
Supplemental Note: the driver state is determined which adjusts the autonomous driving function. For example, an awakening decline state causes the vehicle to notify the driver and switch to manual driving mode)
… according to a time for which the driver continuously views the predetermined range (Oba: Paragraph 0081: “The line-of-vision detection section 103 evaluates a degree of attention of the driver to and a degree of awakening of the driver by performing line-of-vision dynamic analysis. The degree of awakening is a degree that represents a conscious state of the driver. For example, the degree of awakening higher than a predetermined threshold represents that consciousness of the driver is normal. The line-of-vision detection section 103 supplies a detection result of the line of vision and an analysis result of the degree of attention and the like to the vehicle control section 28.”; Paragraph 0087: “once being completed with grasp of the subject event by initial eyeball movements, the driver who is awake repeats moving the line of vision to a next subject for capturing other risk factors coming in the field of vision rather than fixating eyes on the subject event to proceed with observation, without moving the line of vision and performing detailed visual fixation observation.”).
In sum, Oba teaches wherein when the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit is not equal to or higher than the threshold, according to a time for which the driver continuously views the predetermined range. Oba however does not teach the operation reception unit switches the wake word omission function to be enabled or disabled.
Woo teaches the operation reception unit switches the wake word omission function to be enabled or disabled (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Woo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 3, Oba, as modified, teaches as the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit decreases (Oba: Paragraph 0407: “In Step S19, the driving mode switching control section 154 determines whether the driver is in an awakening decline state. This determination is based on the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver detected by the driving state detection section 142.”; Paragraph 0311: “It is noted herein the autonomous level possibly changes with a change in a situation of the running route or the driver with passage of time. The driving mode switching control section 154 needs to acquire new information during running and to always continue to monitor the running route and the driver.”,
Supplemental Note: as stated for claim 1, the autonomous level can continuously change based on the surrounding information and driver awareness. Therefore the driver can go from an awakening decline state to an awakened state).
In sum, Oba teaches the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit decreases. Oba however does not teach wherein the operation reception unit increases a viewing time for switching the wake word omission function from disabled to enabled.
Woo teaches wherein the operation reception unit increases a viewing time for switching the wake word omission function from disabled to enabled (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Woo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 4, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the operation reception unit narrows the predetermined range (Oba: Paragraph 0084: “Determination whether the driver is awake by dynamic analysis of the line of vision is not necessarily made by whether the driver gazes or fixates an outside world object accurately inn a physical direction of eyeballs. Needless to say, the driver often turns the line of vision to a specific subject and fixates and focuses eyes on the specific subject in a situation in which the driver fixates eyes on the specific subject while safely stopping the vehicle, looks at a face of a person coming within the field of vision of the driver to judge who the person is, or in which looks at an advertisement display or the like and reads a content described in the signboard to make cognitive judgment of the content.”; Paragraphs 0091 – 0093: “In a case, for example, in which a traffic light in a blue state and a red poster column or the like present in the traveling direction come within the peripheral visibility range of the driver in an indistinguishable state, the driver needs to judge a color of the traffic light at a time of passing through a crossroad; thus, the driver starts to turn to the traffic light for judgment. In a case in which the driver does not necessarily strictly fixate the red poster column and can complete judgment only by briefly peeking at the poster column, higher precedence is often given to confirming whether a pedestrian or a bicycle runs out if the vehicle travels without change. Furthermore, even the same driver changes in dynamic characteristics such as dynamic observation procedures due to combined factors including brightness, glare, and the like in the environment affected by driver's vision. The line-of-vision detection section 103 performs a dynamic line-of-vision analysis in response to a driver state by learning line-of-vision dynamic characteristics unique to the driver in response to an environment in this way, thereby making it possible to estimate an awake state, and supplies a determination result of the line-of-vision dynamic analysis and an analysis result such as a degree of attention to the vehicle control section 28.”,
Supplemental Note: line-of-vision detection system is able to determine if a driver is looking at the various traffic lights to determine their awareness. This adjusts the autonomous driving function)
as the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit decreases (Oba: Paragraph 0407; Paragraph 0311,
Supplemental Note: as stated for claim 1, the autonomous level can continuously change based on the surrounding information and driver awareness. Therefore the driver can go from an awakening decline state to an awakened state).
Regarding claim 13, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit calculates the risk level based on a rider state of the vehicle (Oba: Paragraph 0407; Paragraph 0311,
Supplemental Note: as stated for claim 1, the autonomous level can continuously change based on the surrounding information and driver awareness. Therefore the driver can go from an awakening decline state to an awakened state).
Regarding claim 14, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as a traveling time of the vehicle increases (Oba: Paragraph 0126: “It is, however, undesirable that a case in which the driver is not in time for return by making setting not to advance the notification timing but to delay the notification timing. If there is a situation, even slightly, in which the driver is not in time for return and eventually late for the return, a frequency of emergency stops of the vehicle increases and a problem of triggering traffic congestion in transportation infrastructure on the premise of smooth transportation possibly occurs, which results in undesirable use form. Therefore, it is required to limit the setting that can be changed by the user as desired to setting such that the user advances the notification timing.”).
Regarding claim 15, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where a driving skill of the driver is poor to be higher than the risk level in a case where the driving skill of the driver is good (Oba: Paragraph 0296: “The driving assist control section 153 controls the running control section 33 in accordance with the instruction by the driving state detection section 142 to cause the vehicle to unnaturally run within the range within which the safety can be guaranteed. In addition, the driving state detection section 142 detects the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver on the basis of a driver's reaction to the unnatural running.”; Paragraph 0300: “The learning section 126 can start learning the correlation between the driver's driving ability and an detectable and observable state or behavior of every kind of the driver on the basis of, for example, the analysis result of the driving behavior analysis section 141.”; Paragraph 0305: “In this way, learning the characteristics unique to the driver in response to each state makes it possible to accurately detect the driver's driving ability on the basis of the driver state (for example, a health condition or a degree of fatigue of the driver, or excessive attention or sensitive responsive reaction to a specific event because of a past experience of a traffic accident or a near miss).”; Paragraphs 0310 – 0311: “The driver state confirmed herein includes a situation of driver's executing secondary tasks, and the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver. It is noted that the reactivity and the degree of awakening of the driver are confirmed on the basis of the detection result by the driving state detection section 142. It is noted herein the autonomous level possibly changes with a change in a situation of the running route or the driver with passage of time. The driving mode switching control section 154 needs to acquire new information during running and to always continue to monitor the running route and the driver.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the driver’s ability, the autonomous driving function can adjust).
Regarding claim 18, Oba teaches an information processing method comprising:
a line-of-sight acquisition step of acquiring line-of- sight information of a driver from a line-of-sight detection unit that detects a line of sight of the driver; (Oba: Paragraph 0075)
a voice acquisition step of acquiring voice information of the driver from a sound collection unit; (Oba: Paragraph 0156; Paragraph 0052)
an operation reception step of receiving an operation (Oba: Paragraph 0159)
… a risk level calculation step of calculating a risk level of a vehicle driven by the driver and surroundings of the vehicle, (Oba: Paragraph 0096; Paragraph 0097; Paragraph 0265; Paragraphs 0309 – 0311
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle surroundings and the driver state (based on detection results per the voice recognition switching determination section and driving state detection section), to determine what autonomous function to drive the vehicle in. This is interpreted as calculating the risk as both the surrounding information and driver awareness adjusts the autonomous function)
… while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and (Oba: Paragraph 0081)
… when the risk level calculated in the risk level calculation step is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold (Oba: Paragraph 0408; Paragraphs 0411 – 0413).
In sum, Oba teaches an information processing method comprising: a line-of-sight acquisition step of acquiring line-of- sight information of a driver from a line-of-sight detection unit that detects a line of sight of the driver; a voice acquisition step of acquiring voice information of the driver from a sound collection unit; an operation reception step of receiving an operation a risk level calculation step of calculating a risk level of a vehicle driven by the driver and surroundings of the vehicle, while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and when the risk level calculated in the risk level calculation step is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold. Oba however does not teach instruction uttered by the driver when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and wherein the operation reception step has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver and disables the wake word omission function.
Woo teaches instruction uttered by the driver when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and (Woo: Paragraph 0013)
… wherein the operation reception step has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0073)
… disables the wake word omission function (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Woo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 19, Oba, teaches a vehicle control system comprising:
a line-of-sight detection unit that is mounted on a vehicle and detects a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle; (Oba: Paragraph 0075)
a sound collection unit mounted on the vehicle; and (Oba: Paragraph 0156; Paragraph 0052)
a control unit that controls the vehicle, wherein the control unit includes: (Oba: Paragraph 0067: “The vehicle control section 28 includes an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) or the like and controls the sections in the vehicle control system 11”)
a line-of-sight acquisition unit that acquires line- of-sight information of the driver from the line-of-sight detection unit; (Oba: Paragraph 0075)
a voice acquisition unit that acquires voice information of the driver from the sound collection unit; (Oba: Paragraph 0156; Paragraph 0052)
an operation reception unit that receives an operation (Oba: Paragraph 0159)
… a risk level calculation unit that calculates a risk level of the vehicle and surroundings of the vehicle, and (Oba: Paragraph 0096; Paragraph 0097; Paragraph 0265; Paragraphs 0309 – 0311
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicle surroundings and the driver state (based on detection results per the voice recognition switching determination section and driving state detection section), to determine what autonomous function to drive the vehicle in. This is interpreted as calculating the risk as both the surrounding information and driver awareness adjusts the autonomous function)
… while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and (Oba: Paragraph 0081)
… when the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold (Oba: Paragraph 0408; Paragraphs 0411 – 0413).
In sum, Oba teaches a vehicle control system comprising: a line-of-sight detection unit that is mounted on a vehicle and detects a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle; a sound collection unit mounted on the vehicle; and a control unit that controls the vehicle, wherein the control unit includes: a line-of-sight acquisition unit that acquires line- of-sight information of the driver from the line-of-sight detection unit; a voice acquisition unit that acquires voice information of the driver from the sound collection unit; an operation reception unit that receives an operation a risk level calculation unit that calculates a risk level of the vehicle and surroundings of the vehicle, and while the driver continuously views a predetermined range in the vehicle, and when the risk level calculated by the risk level calculation unit is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold. Oba however does not teach instruction uttered by the driver when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and the operation reception unit has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver and disables the wake word omission function.
Woo teaches instruction uttered by the driver when a predetermined wake word is included in a voice of the driver; and (Woo: Paragraph 0013)
… the operation reception unit has a wake word omission function of receiving an operation instruction uttered by the driver even if the wake word is not included in a voice of the driver (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013; Paragraph 0073)
… disables the wake word omission function (Woo: Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Woo with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US 20200139992 A1) and Woo et al. (US 20190066680 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oooka et al. (US 20150345964 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as a speed of the vehicle increases.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as a speed of the vehicle increases (Oooka: Paragraph 0103: “The risk maps shown as examples in FIGS. 8A to 8C, when combined based on principles similar to those in FIG. 7D, form the movement stop risk map shown in FIG. 8D. In the movement stop risk map shown in FIG. 8D, the area involving a high risk is made smaller because vehicle speed can be reduced by a greater deceleration. The own vehicle is thereby able to stop at a low-risk location by travelling over a shorter distance.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. Oooka teaches the ability to determine whether a risk is high for a roadway with high speed as there is a longer distance of deceleration needed to slow the vehicle down. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Oooka as use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way when combined with the vehicle system of Oba. Oba teaches gathering road information by a local dynamic map (Oba: Paragraph 0059) while also incorporating an emergency evacuation mode to be used in a case wherein the driver is unable to drive and the vehicle can autonomously travel to a safe evacuation location at a lower speed (Oba: Paragraph 0236; Paragraph 0237). The ability to determine the speed of the roadway by the local dynamic maps and determining a higher risk for a higher speed roadway is an improvement to the vehicle of Oba. For example, a high speed road is riskier for the driver especially if they are unable to drive and the vehicle has to go into the emergency evacuation mode. Traveling at high speeds is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the ability of the vehicle to safely make evasive or emergency maneuvers. This is for all of the vehicles traveling on the roadway, thus, determining a higher risk for these high speed roadways over a lower speed roadway allows the vehicle to determine the proper emergency evacuation mode function to perform.
Regarding claim 7, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as an accident history at a spot where the vehicle is traveling increases.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as an accident history at a spot where the vehicle is traveling increases (Oooka: Paragraph 0138: “when accident information and the like are statistically processed by a facility outside of the vehicle, the risk occurrence frequency information may be generated taking into consideration the results of the statistical processing. Such information may then be provided to the vehicle via communication.”: Paragraph 0165: “In addition, although no particular mention is made in the above-described embodiment, for example, should risk be determined based on the road shape or the like in the above-described risk maps, such risk information may be provided as part of the map information in advance. In addition, a configuration is possible in which information on conditions that can dynamically change, such as the presence of traffic jams and traffic accidents, is provided as a risk map via communication from an outside facility, when such conditions occur.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba already teaches the ability to determine accidents on a roadway and accidents around the vehicle (Oba: Paragraph 0267) while also determining driver state information in which the learning section can store driver behaviors (Oba: Paragraphs 0123 – 0124). Therefore the ability to also determine the amount of accidents on the roadway as taught by Oooka is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example if there are accidents on the roadway, the risk of the roadway is higher per Oooka. This in combination with Oba teaching the ability to determine accidents on the roadway to further increase the risk of the roadway is similar to the function of acquiring accident information in advance. This increases the awareness of the vehicle and it can make better determination of what autonomous drive level to drive in.
Regarding claim 8, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a curve to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a straight road.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a curve to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a straight road (Oooka: Paragraph 0094: “on the curve, there is an area in the three lanes in which the risk level becomes 3, and an area in in the emergency stopping lane in which the risk level becomes 1. This indicates that the risk of a rear-end collision and the like is higher when the own vehicle stops on the curve where visibility is poor, compared to when the own vehicle stops in a location where visibility is good. The risk level is given to each location as a result of the risk determining unit 16 performing risk analysis based on the map information acquired by the map information acquiring unit 11.”; Paragraph 0095: “the risk involved when the own vehicle that is travelling enters each location, taking into consideration the road shape. For example, when the advancing direction of the vehicle deviates outward on the outer side of the area where the curve starts, there is risk of contact with a guardrail or a protective barrier. Therefore, locations in this area are set to have a higher risk level than other locations.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba teaches the ability of the surrounding information acquisition section to acquire roadway information around the vehicle as to determine the risk and adjusting the autonomous driving level (Oba: Paragraphs 0049 – 0050). The ability of this section as taught by Oba to also determine the shape of the road and furthering making a determination where the risk is higher on a curve roadway as taught by Oooka would be obvious to try to combine by one of ordinary skill in the art. This roadway shape and risk determination of Oooka can improve the ability to set the autonomous driving level based on the shape, as for example, requiring an increased level of autonomous driving when on a curved roadway as risk increases.
Regarding claim 9, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a general road to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on an expressway.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a general road to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on an expressway (Oooka: Paragraph 0136: “The risk occurrence frequency determined at step S510 is a value that indicates the tendency for risk to occur at each location. For example, the risk occurrence frequency can be set based on the type of road (such as an inter-urban expressway, an urban expressway, an expressway, or an ordinary road), the connection point (such as an intersection, a junction, a merger, a crosswalk, or a railroad crossing), and the type of traffic lane (such as a driving lane, a passing lane, a climbing lane, an emergency stopping lane, a road shoulder, a right- or left-turn lane, a merging lane, or a slip lane). For example, in the case of a straight road that offers good visibility and an intersection that offers poor visibility, the risk occurrence frequency of the latter is set to be relatively higher.”; Paragraph 0170: “according to the above-described embodiment, the risk avoidability is evaluated based on all of the following conditions: whether the road type is a highway or an ordinary road; whether the location is a road shoulder, a driving lane, or an intersection; whether the road line shape is straight or a curve; and whether the time period is day or night. However, whether or not to use all of these conditions can be arbitrarily decided.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed for claim 5, Oooka teaches the ability to determine whether a risk is high for a roadway with high speed as there is a longer distance of deceleration needed to slow the vehicle down, such as an expressway over local roads. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Oooka as use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way when combined with the vehicle system of Oba. Oba teaches gathering road information by a local dynamic map (Oba: Paragraph 0059) while also incorporating an emergency evacuation mode to be used in a case wherein the driver is unable to drive, the vehicle can autonomously travel to a safe evacuation location at a lower speed (Oba: Paragraph 0236; Paragraph 0237). The ability to determine the speed of the roadway by the local dynamic maps and determining a higher risk for a higher speed roadway (expressway) is an improvement to the vehicle of Oba. For example, a high speed road is riskier for the driver especially if they are unable to drive and the vehicle has to go into the emergency evacuation mode. Traveling at high speeds is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to decrease the ability of the vehicle to safely make evasive or emergency maneuvers. This is for all of the vehicles traveling on the roadway. Thus, determining a higher risk for these high speed roadways over a lower speed roadway allows the vehicle to determine the proper emergency evacuation mode function to perform.
Regarding claim 10, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling at an intersection to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a road other than the intersection.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling at an intersection to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling on a road other than the intersection (Oooka: Paragraph 0136: “The risk occurrence frequency determined at step S510 is a value that indicates the tendency for risk to occur at each location. For example, the risk occurrence frequency can be set based on the type of road (such as an inter-urban expressway, an urban expressway, an expressway, or an ordinary road), the connection point (such as an intersection, a junction, a merger, a crosswalk, or a railroad crossing), and the type of traffic lane (such as a driving lane, a passing lane, a climbing lane, an emergency stopping lane, a road shoulder, a right- or left-turn lane, a merging lane, or a slip lane). For example, in the case of a straight road that offers good visibility and an intersection that offers poor visibility, the risk occurrence frequency of the latter is set to be relatively higher.”; Paragraph 0170: “In addition, according to the above-described embodiment, the risk avoidability is evaluated based on all of the following conditions: whether the road type is a highway or an ordinary road; whether the location is a road shoulder, a driving lane, or an intersection; whether the road line shape is straight or a curve; and whether the time period is day or night. However, whether or not to use all of these conditions can be arbitrarily decided.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed for claim 8, Oba teaches the ability of the surrounding information acquisition section to acquire roadway information around the vehicle as to determine the risk and adjusting the autonomous driving level (Oba: Paragraphs 0049 – 0050). The ability of this section of Oba to also determine if the roadway has intersection taught by Oooka would be obvious to try to combine by one of ordinary skill in the art. Determining a roadway is an intersection can improve the ability of Oooka to better determine what level to set the autonomous level function to. For example, the autonomous driving function may alert the driver to switch to manual driving in areas of intersection so there is increased driver awareness for any crossing vehicles or pedestrians versus if the vehicle is still fully autonomous.
Regarding claim 11, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as a number of other vehicles traveling around the vehicle increases.
Oooka teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit increases the risk level as a number of other vehicles traveling around the vehicle increases (Oooka: Paragraph 0141: “the avoidable space level can be set based on the road line shape (such as the curvature and gradient, as well as the points of change thereof), road boundaries (such as guardrails, walls, side ditches, poles, blocks, fences, and cliffs), the type of traffic lane (such as a driving lane, a passing lane, a climbing lane, an emergency stopping lane, a road shoulder, a right- or left-turn lane, a merging lane, or a slip lane), the length and width of the traffic lane, road attributes (such as a street, a sidewalk, a bicycle lane, or a railroad), the advancing direction (such as forward or reverse), restricted zones (such as course-change prohibited zones and no-passing zones), through streets, structural attributes (such as tunnels, gates, and bridges), roadside structures (such as walls, trees, and buildings), overhead structures (such as signboards and elevated highways), and the type of vehicle (such as lightweight vehicles, small vehicles, normal vehicles, small trucks, and large trucks).”; Paragraph 0139: “The risk avoidability determined at step S520 is a value that indicates the likelihood of the risk being avoided. According to the present embodiment, risk avoidability is determined based on the following three determination criteria: an own-vehicle recognition distance level, an avoidable space level, and a maneuverability level.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the vehicles around the host vehicle, the risk avoid-ability determined step can increase the risk factor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Oooka with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba teaches the ability of gathering surrounding information and driver awareness to set the autonomous driving level of the vehicle. Oooka teaching the ability to assess a higher risk when there are more vehicles around the host vehicle would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle of Oba by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Oba also teaches the ability to perform an emergency evacuation procedure in situations where the driver is unresponsive. This allows the autonomous driving system to move the vehicle to a safe location. In these scenarios, the ability to determine the amount of surrounding vehicles to the host vehicle is crucial as it increases the risk for any other potential collisions with them as the vehicle is in this emergency evacuation mode. The vehicle of Oba is set to travel at a reduced moving speed in this emergency evacuation mode (Oba: Paragraph 0114), thus increases the potential for an accident with a speeding vehicle or create traffic congestion in an already dense vehicle roadway. This combination allows the vehicle to better assess the risk and make a safer determination of what autonomous driving level to set for the vehicle based on the number of vehicles around it.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US 20200139992 A1) and Woo et al. (US 20190066680 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220144034 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit (Oba: Paragraph 0311: “It is noted herein the autonomous level possibly changes with a change in a situation of the running route or the driver with passage of time. The driving mode switching control section 154 needs to acquire new information during running and to always continue to monitor the running route and the driver.”).
In sum, Oba teaches the risk level calculation unit. Oba however does not teach increasing the risk level as a weight of the vehicle increases.
Kim teaches increases the risk level as a weight of the vehicle increases (Kim: Paragraph 0005: “there is a limitation in continuously maintaining a leveling state even in a pulling phenomenon due to inertia caused by driving on a sharp curve or while driving on a slope, and as the weight of the vehicle increases, there is a problem in that a risk such as a rollover accident due to inertia is not prevented. In addition, it was difficult to pass through high irregularities formed on the ground, curved points, rather deep puddles, strong winds, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “difficulties”)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. Kim teaches that heavier vehicles have a higher chance of rollover on the roadway. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this function of Kim to be obvious to try to implement with the vehicle of Oba to improve the risk assessment for it’s vehicle. Gathering the vehicle weight will adjust the autonomous driving function of the vehicle of Oba as the autonomous level setting selection gathers information, not limited to, about the road condition, traffic information and surrounding information. Also gathering the weight of the vehicle and increasing the risk of rollover as taught by Kim in combination with the autonomous driving function of Oba increases the efficiency of the autonomous driving as the weight can be taken into consideration to prevent any rollovers if, for example, the vehicle is driving on a curved roadway.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US 20200139992 A1) and Woo et al. (US 20190066680 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaiser et al. (US 20190108753 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Oba, as modified, teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit (Oba: Paragraph 0311).
In sum Oba teaches the risk level calculation unit. Oba however does not teach setting the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling in daytime to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling at night.
Kaiser teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling in daytime to be higher than the risk level in a case where the vehicle is traveling at night (Kaiser: Paragraph 0050: “Road segments proximate an office building may experience a surge in adverse pedestrian events such as adverse pedestrian crossings during a window of time in the morning, such as 7:00 am-9:00 am, and another surge in the afternoon, such as 4:00 pm-6:00 pm. These time windows may correlate to the start and finish of a typical workday for most of the people in the office building, and may occur only during certain days of the week, such as Monday through Friday. In such an embodiment, the road segment proximate the office building may have a pedestrian behavior profile that indicates that adverse pedestrian events are unlikely on weekends and unlikely outside of a morning window of time and an afternoon window of time. However, during the window of time in the morning and the window of time in the afternoon on Mondays through Fridays, the pedestrian behavior profile for the road segment proximate the office building may indicate that the likelihood of an adverse pedestrian event is high, and that a driver traversing the road segment during one of these windows on a weekday should be cautious or possibly avoid that road segment during those times.”,
Supplemental Note: in the scenario described there is an increased risk for driving during the cited windows on a weekday as there is increased pedestrian traffic than at other times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Kaiser with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba teaches the ability of the surrounding information acquisition section to acquire roadway information around the vehicle as to determine the risk and adjusting the autonomous driving level (Oba: Paragraphs 0049 – 0050). This includes the amount of pedestrians within the vicinity of the host vehicle. Kaiser further teaches the ability of increasing the risk at certain times of the day when there is increased pedestrian activity. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Kaiser with the vehicle of Oba as it increases the ability of calculating the risk of the vehicle and adjusting the autonomous driving level accordingly. For example, the vehicle of Oba will be able to determine an increased number of pedestrians between certain times which can aid in a more accurate determination of what autonomous driving level to set to.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oba et al. (US 20200139992 A1) and Woo et al. (US 20190066680 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 10513274 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where an accident history of the driver is many to be higher than the risk level in a case where the accident history of the driver is few.
Sung teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit sets the risk level in a case where an accident history of the driver is many to be higher than the risk level in a case where the accident history of the driver is few (Sung: Col. 8, lines 52 – 54: “For example, the controller 17 may calculate a risk level like Table 2 below in a manner to calculate the risk level using only accident history.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Table A, the number of accidents increases the risk level).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table A: Sung: Table 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. Oba teaches the ability to determine the driver awareness and stores the patterns of driver behaviors evaluated by a learning section (Oba: Paragraph 0123). The ability to further include the number of accidents to determine the risk level as taught Sung would be obvious to try with the vehicle of Oba by one of ordinary skill in the art as it improves the risk calculation. For example, if a driver has a history of multiple accidents, the autonomous driving level can be adjusted to be higher and provide more support to the driver as to veer them away from any potential collisions.
Regarding claim 17, Oba, as modified, does not teach wherein the risk level calculation unit calculates the risk level based on an age of the driver.
Sung teaches wherein the risk level calculation unit calculates the risk level based on an age of the driver (Sung: Col. 8, line 66 – Col. 9, line 18: “For another example, the controller 17 may calculate a risk level based on accident history and driver age. In other words, the controller 17 may use a manner to change the risk level in Table 2 above in consideration of driver age. For example, when driver age is less than 50, the controller 17 may fail to consider the driver age. For example, when the driver age is between 50 and 60, the controller 17 may add 2% to the risk level in Table 2 above. In other words, the risk level in Table 2 above may change to 12, 32, 52, 72, and 92. For example, when the driver age is between 60 and 65, the controller 17 may add 3% to the risk level in Table 2 above. In other words, the risk level in Table 2 above may change to 13, 33, 53, 73, and 93. For example, when the driver age is between 65 and 70, the controller 17 may add 5% to the risk level in Table 2 above. In other words, the risk level in Table 2 above may change to 15, 35, 55, 75, and 95. For example, when the driver age is greater than or equal to 70, the controller 17 may add 7% to the risk level in Table 2 above. In other words, the risk level in Table 2 above may change to 17, 37, 57, 77, and 97”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Oba with the teachings of Sung with a reasonable expectation of success. As discussed in claim 17, Oba teaches the ability to determine the driver awareness and stores the patterns of driver behaviors evaluated by a learning section (Oba: Paragraph 0123). The ability to further include the age of the driver to determine the risk level as taught Sung would be obvious to try with the vehicle of Oba by one of ordinary skill in the art as it improves the risk calculation. For example, Sung teaches the risk to be higher for drivers of higher ages, thus when combined with the vehicle system of Oba, the autonomous driving level can be adjusted to be higher and provide more support to the driver as to veer them away from any potential collisions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights