DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated April 22, 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1, 3, 7, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (Horii; US PG Pub #2020/0398868) in view of Foster et al. (Foster; US PG Pub #2023/0020966).
As to claim 1, Horii teaches a notification control device for use in a vehicle configured to execute automated driving control, the notification control device comprising a controller (Paragraph [0049] teaches an automated driving controller including a first controller, a second controller, and a switching controller; Paragraph [0077] teaches the switching controller causes the HMI to output information) configured to carry out:
acquiring data indicating whether the vehicle is operating under the automated driving control (Paragraphs [0074]-[0075] teach transitioning to the first automated driving mode when a request for starting has been made via a main switch being operated and ending the first automated driving mode when an occupant of the vehicle operates a predetermined HMI button; Paragraph [0011] teaches ending support driving when the switch is operated);
acquiring information about a gate point which is a point where multiple gates are provided on a toll road (Paragraph [0056] teaches the recognizer recognizes toll gates); and
executing a notification to prompt a driver to check a surrounding traffic condition based on the vehicle entering a gate area under the automated driving control (Paragraph [0070] teaches operating in the first automated driving mode for a section in which the shape of a road near a tollgate is different from a simple straight line; Paragraph [0077] teaches causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode). Horii does not explicitly teach determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point.
In the field of autonomous vehicle control, Foster teaches determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point (Paragraph [0099] teaches detecting the toll booth facility includes identifying a starting point of the toll booth facility along the roadway; Paragraph [0100] teaches detecting a street sign, receiving a message indicating presence of the toll booth facility, and obtaining map data and comparing a current location to determine if within a threshold distance of the tool booth facility). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the determination of Foster because determining the vehicle has entered a gate area allows the autonomous vehicle to operate within high-density and crowded environments in which a higher level of precision, control, and awareness of surrounding objects may be needed to safely navigate the vehicle (Paragraph [0024]).
As to claim 3, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out continuing the notification until the vehicle exits the gate area (Paragraph [0070] teaches operating in the first automated driving mode for a section in which the shape of a road near a tollgate is different from a simple straight line; Paragraph [0077] teaches causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode).
As to claim 7, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii teaches wherein
the vehicle is configured to selectively implement a hands-off prohibited mode, in which a driver is required to hold a steering wheel during the automated driving control (Paragraph [0070] teaches a hands-on automated driving mode requiring an occupant to monitor surroundings and grasp the steering wheel near a tollgate), and a hands-off capable mode, in which the driver is not required to hold the steering wheel during the automated driving control (Paragraph [0071] teaches a hands-off automated driving mode in which the occupant is not grasping the steering wheel), and
the controller is further configured to carry out executing different modes of the notification when traveling through the gate area, depending on whether it is in the hands-off prohibited mode or the hands-off capable mode (Paragraph [0077] teaches causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode; Paragraph [0070] teaches the first automated driving mode near toll gates).
As to claim 13, depending from the notification control device according to claim 3, Horii does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out changing a mode of the notification before and after passing through the gate point.
However, Horii does teach a hands-on automated driving mode requiring an occupant to monitor surroundings and grasp the steering wheel near a tollgate (Paragraph [0070]) and causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode (Paragraph [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii to turn on the alert before the gate and turn off the alert after the gate such that the mode of the notification is changed before and after passing through the gate point because properly requesting driving behavior when appropriate instead of constantly requesting the same behavior of the driver yields the predictable result of increased reliability that the request will be met instead of ignored which improves driving safety.
As to claim 14, Horii teaches a notification control method executed by a processor included in a vehicle configured to execute automated driving control (Paragraph [0031] teaches a vehicle control method; Paragraph [0049] teaches an automated driving controller including a first controller, a second controller, and a switching controller, each of which is realized by causing a hardware processor such as a CPU to execute a program; Paragraph [0077] teaches the switching controller causes the HMI to output information), the method comprising:
acquiring data indicating whether the vehicle is operating under the automated driving control (Paragraphs [0074]-[0075] teach transitioning to the first automated driving mode when a request for starting has been made via a main switch being operated and ending the first automated driving mode when an occupant of the vehicle operates a predetermined HMI button; Paragraph [0011] teaches ending support driving when the switch is operated);
acquiring information about a gate point which is a point where multiple gates are provided on a toll road (Paragraph [0056] teaches the recognizer recognizes toll gates); and
executing a notification to prompt a driver to check a surrounding traffic condition based on the vehicle entering a gate area under the automated driving control (Paragraph [0070] teaches operating in the first automated driving mode for a section in which the shape of a road near a tollgate is different from a simple straight line; Paragraph [0077] teaches causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode). Horii does not explicitly teach determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point.
In the field of autonomous vehicle control, Foster teaches determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point (Paragraph [0099] teaches detecting the toll booth facility includes identifying a starting point of the toll booth facility along the roadway; Paragraph [0100] teaches detecting a street sign, receiving a message indicating presence of the toll booth facility, and obtaining map data and comparing a current location to determine if within a threshold distance of the tool booth facility). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the determination of Foster because determining the vehicle has entered a gate area allows the autonomous vehicle to operate within high-density and crowded environments in which a higher level of precision, control, and awareness of surrounding objects may be needed to safely navigate the vehicle (Paragraph [0024]).
As to claim 15, Horii teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a notification control program comprising instructions executed by at least one processor included in a vehicle configured to execute automated driving control, the instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor (Paragraph [0139] teaches a program stored in the secondary storage device is executed by the CPU to realize the controller; Paragraph [0049] teaches an automated driving controller including a first controller, a second controller, and a switching controller, each of which is realized by causing a hardware processor such as a CPU to execute a program; Paragraph [0077] teaches the switching controller causes the HMI to output information) to carry out:
acquiring data indicating whether the vehicle is operating under the automated driving control (Paragraphs [0074]-[0075] teach transitioning to the first automated driving mode when a request for starting has been made via a main switch being operated and ending the first automated driving mode when an occupant of the vehicle operates a predetermined HMI button; Paragraph [0011] teaches ending support driving when the switch is operated);
acquiring information about a gate point which is a point where multiple gates are provided on a toll road (Paragraph [0056] teaches the recognizer recognizes toll gates); and
executing a notification to prompt a driver to check a surrounding traffic condition based on the vehicle entering a gate area under the automated driving control (Paragraph [0070] teaches operating in the first automated driving mode for a section in which the shape of a road near a tollgate is different from a simple straight line; Paragraph [0077] teaches causing the HMI to output a request for an occupant to monitor surroundings in the first automated driving mode). Horii does not explicitly teach determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point.
In the field of autonomous vehicle control, Foster teaches determining whether the vehicle has entered a gate area defined with reference to the gate point (Paragraph [0099] teaches detecting the toll booth facility includes identifying a starting point of the toll booth facility along the roadway; Paragraph [0100] teaches detecting a street sign, receiving a message indicating presence of the toll booth facility, and obtaining map data and comparing a current location to determine if within a threshold distance of the tool booth facility). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the determination of Foster because determining the vehicle has entered a gate area allows the autonomous vehicle to operate within high-density and crowded environments in which a higher level of precision, control, and awareness of surrounding objects may be needed to safely navigate the vehicle (Paragraph [0024]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (Horii; US PG Pub #2020/0398868) in view of Foster et al. (Foster; US PG Pub #2023/0020966) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bando et al. (Bando; US PG Pub #2009/0024321).
As to claim 2, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out:
continuing the notification until the vehicle passes through a gate; and
terminating the notification based on the vehicle having passed through the gate.
In the field of vehicle displays, Bando teaches continuing the notification until the vehicle passes through a gate; and terminating the notification based on the vehicle having passed through the gate (Paragraph [0094] teaches erasing a display when detecting passing of a tollgate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the display termination of Bando because this yields the predictable result of outputting relevant information and/or requests to a driver so that the driver is not confused and the safety of vehicle operations are enhanced.
As to claim 12, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out displaying on a display a trajectory image indicating a trajectory of the vehicle until the vehicle passes through a gate such that the trajectory image is interrupted at a position overlapping with the gate.
In the field of vehicle displays, Bando teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out displaying on a display a trajectory image indicating a trajectory of the vehicle until the vehicle passes through a gate such that the trajectory image is interrupted at a position overlapping with the gate (Figures 7(A) and 16(A) show 2 displays including a display showing the gate interrupting a trajectory and a display displaying trajectories until a gate such that the trajectory ends at a position of the gate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the display termination of Bando because this yields the predictable result of outputting relevant information and/or requests to a driver so that the driver is not confused and the safety of vehicle operations are enhanced.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (Horii; US PG Pub #2020/0398868) in view of Foster et al. (Foster; US PG Pub #2023/0020966) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (Wagner; US PG Pub #2007/0241203).
As to claim 4, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out:
acquiring data of another vehicle present in vicinity of the vehicle (Paragraph [0130] teaches recognizing a nearby vehicle in front; Paragraph [0055] teaches recognizing states of an object near the vehicle), but does not explicitly teach terminating the notification when there is no other vehicle present in the vicinity of the vehicle.
In the field of proximity sensing, Wagner teaches terminating the notification when there is no one present in the vicinity (Paragraph [0035] teaches powering down displays when user proximity is not detected). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the proximity alerting of Wagner such that the notification is terminated when there is no other vehicle present in the vicinity of the vehicle because this provides an additional level of power conservation which allows the battery to power the user interface for a longer period of time (Paragraph [0025]).
As to claim 5, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out:
acquiring data of another vehicle present in vicinity of the vehicle (Paragraph [0130] teaches recognizing a nearby vehicle in front; Paragraph [0055] teaches recognizing states of an object near the vehicle), but does not explicitly teach reducing an intensity of the notification when there is no other vehicle present in the vicinity of the vehicle, compared to when another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the vehicle.
In the field of proximity sensing, Wagner teaches reducing an intensity of the notification when there is no one present in the vicinity, compared to when a user is present in the vicinity (Paragraph [0036] teaches reducing the intensity of a display upon an indication of a lack of user proximity). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the proximity alerting of Wagner such that an intensity of the notification is reduced when there is no other vehicle present in the vicinity of the vehicle, compared to when another vehicle is present in the vicinity of the vehicle because this provides an additional level of power conservation which allows the battery to power the user interface for a longer period of time (Paragraph [0025]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (Horii; US PG Pub #2020/0398868) in view of Foster et al. (Foster; US PG Pub #2023/0020966) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takabatake et al. (Takabatake; US PG Pub #2024/0217535).
As to claim 8, depending from the notification control device according to claim 7, Horii does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to carry out increasing an intensity of the notification when traveling through the gate area in the hands-off capable mode, compared to when traveling through the gate area in the hands-off prohibited mode.
In the field of autonomous vehicle displays, Takabatake teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out increasing an intensity of the notification when in the hands-off capable mode, compared to when traveling in the hands-off prohibited mode (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] teach increasing the brightness of an image to make the image more prominent; Paragraph [0042] teaches making the image more prominent before switching from autonomous to manual driving; Figures 12-13 show displaying icons when in autonomous mode and not displaying icons when not in autonomous mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Horii with the intensity change of Takabatake such that the intensity is increased when traveling through the gate area in a hands-off capable mode because this mitigates the annoyance that the occupant may feel (Paragraph [0021]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (Horii; US PG Pub #2020/0398868) in view of Foster et al. (Foster; US PG Pub #2023/0020966) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bando et al. (Bando; US PG Pub #2009/0024321) and Maruyama (US PG Pub #2012/0253628).
As to claim 11, depending from the notification control device according to claim 1, Horii teaches wherein the controller is further configured to carry out:
acquiring data indicating whether the vehicle is following a preceding vehicle (Paragraph [0059] teaches determining an event including a following traveling event in which a vehicle follows a front vehicle; Paragraph [0130] teaches following a nearby vehicle traveling in front in the traveling direction of the own vehicle), but does not explicitly teach displaying on a display an image in which an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle is superimposed on an image of the gate area when the vehicle is not following a preceding vehicle in the gate area; and
displaying on the display an image of the gate area that does not include an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle when the vehicle is following a preceding vehicle in the gate area.
In the field of vehicle displays, Bando teaches displaying on a display an image in which an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle is superimposed on an image of the gate area when the vehicle is not following a preceding vehicle in the gate area (Figures 7(A), 7(B), 16(A), 16(B), 22(A), and 22(B) show a trajectory through a toll gate area). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the display of Bando because this allows for guiding a vehicle to a lane (Paragraphs [0001] and [0011]). However, Horii in view of Bando does not render obvious displaying on the display an image of the gate area that does not include an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle when the vehicle is following a preceding vehicle in the gate area.
In the field of driving support systems, Maruyama teaches displaying on the display an image that does not include an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle when the vehicle is following a preceding vehicle (Figures 3A-3C; Paragraphs [0028] and [0034] teaches a preceding vehicle display indicator when following a vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Horii with the display of Maruyama to display an image of the gate area that does not include an image element indicating a trajectory of the vehicle when the vehicle is following a preceding vehicle in the gate area because this yields the predictable result of outputting relevant information to a driver so that the driver is not confused and the safety of vehicle operations are enhanced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or render obvious the subject matter of the identified dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sen et al. (US PG Pub #2017/0313314) teach automated driving based on positions of toll gates (Paragraph [0078]).
Park (US PG Pub #2017/0001650) teaches self-driving through a toll gate (Paragraph [0016]).
Kawamata et al. (US PG Pub #2008/0147305) teach notifying a user of approaching a tollgate and decreasing vehicle speed (Paragraph [0124]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights