DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 10/07/2021 and 08/22/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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:
“a detection unit configured to detect an operation of a driver of a vehicle,” as recited in claim 1.
“a surrounding sensing unit configured to sense,” as recited in claim 1.
“a travel control unit that controls travel of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 1.
“a driving assistance determination unit that determines necessity of driving assistance to the driver,” as recited in claim 1.
“a driving assistance execution unit that executes the driving assistance,” as recited in claim 1.
“a driving assistance adjustment unit that records and analyzes an execution status of the driving assistance execution unit,” as recited in claim 1.
“a driving assistance reliability estimation unit configured to estimate reliability of the determination result,” as recited in claim 13.
“a driving assistance reliability estimation unit configured to estimate, as recited in claim 14.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. 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 the 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.
Claims 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 10, the term “the time” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 13, the term “the number-of-times” lacks antecedent basis.
(c) Regarding Claim 14, the term “the presence or absence” lacks antecedent basis.
(d) Regarding Claim 14, the term “the number-of-times” lacks antecedent basis.
(e) Regarding Claim 17, the term “the time” lacks antecedent basis.
(f) Regarding Claim 19, the term “the execution intensity” lacks antecedent basis.
(g) Regarding Claim 19, the term “the same extent” lacks antecedent basis.
(h) Regarding Claim 20, the term “the execution intensity” lacks antecedent basis.
(i) Regarding Claim 20, the term “the same extent” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogata et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0221506A1 (hereinafter, Ogata).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogata describes a vehicle control system (a driving assistance device, Ogata, Paragraph 0053 and Figure 1) comprising:
-a detection unit configured to detect an operation of a driver on a vehicle (acquisition unit acquires information regarding the driver's operation of the vehicle, Ogata, Paragraph 0063 and Figure 1);
-a surrounding sensing unit configured to sense a condition of surroundings of the vehicle (acquisition unit acquires information from sensors regarding objects in the periphery of the vehicle, Ogata, Paragraphs 0056-0059 and Figures 1-3);
-and a control unit including a travel control unit that controls travel of the vehicle in response to the operation on the vehicle (integrated controller controls vehicle travel, including in response to driver operation, such as braking and acceleration control, Ogata, Paragraphs 0053, 0062-0064, and 0106),
-a driving assistance determination unit that determines necessity of driving assistance to the driver according to the condition of the surroundings of the vehicle (assistance determination unit determines whether assistance is necessary and to what amount, Ogata, Paragraphs 0064 and 0070-0073),
-and a driving assistance execution unit that executes the driving assistance according to a determination result of the driving assistance determination unit (assistance instruction unit instructs a controller or actuator to execute driving assistance corresponding to the assistance pattern (i.e., determination result), Ogata, Paragraphs 0061-0062 and 0073),
-wherein the control unit includes a driving assistance adjustment unit that records and analyzes an execution status of the driving assistance execution unit and adjusts a degree of the driving assistance based on an analysis result of the execution status (executed assistance is recorded and evaluated, and when the frequency of driving assistance, for example, exceeds a predetermined value, a parameter may be changed to issue an obstacle approach alarm earlier in a similar scene, thus adjusting the degree of driving assistance based on the analysis results of an execution status, Ogata, Paragraphs 0084-0086 and 0108 and Figure 5B).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein an adjustment of the degree of the driving assistance executed by the driving assistance adjustment unit is an adjustment of an execution timing of the driving assistance and/or execution intensity of the driving assistance (parameter is changed to issue an obstacle approach alarm earlier (i.e., adjusting timing of the driving assistance), Ogata, Paragraph 0108 and Figure 5B).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance executed by the driving assistance execution unit is a notification and/or an intervention in travel control performed by the travel control unit according to the determination result of the driving assistance determination unit (assistance includes an alarm or control of the vehicle, such as deceleration or acceleration suppression, Ogata, Paragraphs 0062, 0106-0108).
Regarding Claim 10, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit records the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit in association with a place at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit, and analyzes the execution status for each place at the time of execution (assistance patterns are recorded with surrounding sensor maps, and executed assistance is evaluated and updated for similar map locations, Ogata, Paragraphs 0065, 0081-0086, and 0094-0102 and Figures 6-7B).
Regarding Claim 11, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 10, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit records the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit in further association with a course of the vehicle at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit, and analyzes the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit for each course (assistance patterns include vehicle position and azimuth information, and assistance is evaluated according to the vehicle's direction and surrounding sensor map, Ogata, Paragraphs 0119-0123 and 0126-0130 and Figures 9-11C).
Regarding Claim 12, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 10, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit records the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit in further association with a surrounding environment of the vehicle at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit, and analyzes the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit for each environment (assistance patterns are recorded with environmental information, including time, weather, and vehicle azimuth, and assistance is determined according to the corresponding environmental conditions, Ogata, Paragraphs 0124-0135 and Figure 9).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0221506A1 (hereinafter, Ogata), in view of Kuehnle et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0324461A1 (hereinafter, Kuehnle).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit records, as the execution status (assistance execution information is recorded and evaluated, and assistance frequency is compared with a predetermined value, Ogata, Paragraphs 0084-0086 and 0108 and Figure 5B) ...
Ogata does not specifically disclose at least a lifetime execution rate obtained by dividing a lifetime number-of-times of executions of the driving assistance executed by the driving assistance execution unit by a calculation distance unit and/or a latest execution rate obtained by dividing a latest number-of-times of executions by a calculation distance unit.
Kuehnle discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Kuehnle records collision-mitigation braking events and determines their frequency per mile (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0031-0032). Kuehnle describes a driver having 0.02 collision-mitigation braking events per mile and updating the driver's event frequency each time the driver travels the route section (Kuehnle, Paragraph 0032). Kuehnle further describes recording event frequencies and giving newer data greater weight to reflect current conditions (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0034-0036). Thus, Kuehnle teaches determining an execution rate based on the number of assistance-related events per unit distance and updating the rate using recent driving data.
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the vehicle control system, as modified, records, as the execution status, at least a lifetime execution rate obtained by dividing a lifetime number-of-times of executions of the driving assistance executed by the driving assistance execution unit by a calculation distance unit and/or a latest execution rate obtained by dividing a latest number-of-times of executions by a calculation distance unit, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kuehnle.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because calculating assistance-related event frequencies per mile and favoring, for example, newer data provides a distance-normalized measure that reflects current driving conditions (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0032 and 0034-0036).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogata, as modified, describes the vehicle control system according to claim 4, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit; records, as the execution status, the execution rate of the driving assistance executed by the driving assistance execution unit (assistance frequency is recorded and analyzed, as modified to use an execution rate per unit distance, Ogata, Paragraphs 0084-0086 and 0108), and when the execution rate of the driving assistance exceeds a first predetermined reference, advances an execution timing and/or strengthens execution intensity of the driving assistance execution unit (when assistance frequency exceeds a predetermined value, a parameter is changed to issue an obstacle approach alarm earlier, Ogata, Paragraph 0108 and Figure 5B).
Regarding Claim 17, Ogata describes the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit (assistance pattern update unit records and evaluates assistance execution information, Ogata, Paragraphs 0084-0086 and Figure 6) ... and records the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit in association with the place at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit (assistance execution information is recorded with surrounding sensor maps, Ogata, Paragraphs 0081-0086 and Figure 6), and analyzes a characteristic of the driving assistance determination unit as the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit for each place (assistance validity is evaluated based on driver operation after assistance, and assistance patterns are validated or invalidated for similar map locations, Ogata, Paragraphs 0085-0086 and 0094-0102 and Figures 6-7B).
Ogata does not specifically disclose records all of the execution statuses without associating the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit with a place at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit, analyzes a driver characteristic as the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit.
Kuehnle discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Kuehnle records vehicle events, including lane-departure warnings, forward-collision warnings, and collision-mitigation braking events, and uses the event data to characterize driver performance (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0013, 0026, and 0031-0032). Kuehnle further describes determining a driver's performance in general, on any route, based on the driver's average distance between lane-departure warning events (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0043-0044). Kuehnle also describes updating driver-performance data using newer events and giving recent data greater weight (Kuehnle, Paragraph 0049).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the vehicle control system, as modified, records all of the execution statuses without associating the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit with a place at the time of execution of the driving assistance execution unit, analyzes a driver characteristic as the execution status of the driving assistance execution unit, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Kuehnle.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because analyzing driver-wide event history separately from route-specific event history allows driver performance to be assessed independently of route difficulty (Kuehnle, Paragraphs 0041-0044 and 0049-0050).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2024/0221506A1 (hereinafter, Ogata), in view of Kuehnle et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0324461A1 (hereinafter, Kuehnle), and in further view of Khayyer et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0048517A1 (hereinafter, Khayyer).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogata, as modified, describes the vehicle control system according to claim 5.
Ogata does not specifically disclose wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit does not determine whether the number-of-times of executions exceeds the first predetermined reference until a travel distance or a travel time of the vehicle or the number-of-times of executions of the driving assistance execution unit exceeds a threshold.
Khayyer discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation. Khayyer describes monitoring a driver's responsiveness to ADAS warnings for a predetermined period of time or mileage, such as 50 miles (Khayyer, Paragraph 0024 and Figure 2). Khayyer further describes determining whether a warning needs adjustment based on a response-rate threshold or a predetermined number of response-failure instances (Khayyer, Paragraph 0025 and Figure 2). Khayyer also describes withholding adjustment when the predetermined monitoring time or mileage has not occurred and the monitoring data is insufficient (Khayyer, Paragraph 0025 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the vehicle control system, as modified, includes wherein the driving assistance adjustment unit does not determine whether the number-of-times of executions exceeds the first predetermined reference until a travel distance or a travel time of the vehicle or the number-of-times of executions of the driving assistance execution unit exceeds a threshold, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Khayyer.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because requiring sufficient monitoring time or mileage before performing the threshold comparison allows the adjustment to be based on sufficient driving history (Khayyer, Paragraphs 0024-0025 and Figure 2)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13-16, and 18-20 contain allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
