DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 19/188,541, filed April 24, 2025. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits, Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are addressed below.
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
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on May 1, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 4/24/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 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.
The term “relaxed” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relaxed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case there is no standard in the claim for what is relaxed and what is not, a first person of ordinary skill in the art my define relaxed as having the system be completely disabled, and second person may define relaxed as simply enlarging the range the driver is permitted to look by a single degree.
The examiner recommends explicitly defining how the criterion is relaxed in the claim so as to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to empirically determine how the criterion is relaxed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Under Step 1:
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim comprising a monitoring device comprising a processor. (thus the claims are to an apparatus Step 1: yes)
Under Step 2A - Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b)certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A monitoring device comprising:
a processor configured to
determine whether a driver is looking aside based on information representing a direction of a face of the driver using a predetermined determination criterion,
determine whether a current position of a host vehicle is within a roundabout based on map information, and
change the determination criterion so that it has not been determined that the driver is looking aside when the face of the driver is facing in the direction of an entry point of another vehicle into the roundabout, when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because as drafted, the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the claimed processor). Specifically, but for the “A monitoring device comprising: a processor configured to” language, “determine whether a driver is looking aside based on information representing a direction of a face of the driver using a predetermined determination criterion, determine whether a current position of a host vehicle is within a roundabout based on map information, and change the determination criterion so that it has not been determined that the driver is looking aside when the face of the driver is facing in the direction of an entry point of another vehicle into the roundabout, when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining where a driver is looking using sensor data, determining a location of the vehicle, and mentally changing a determination criterion based on the direction of gaze and the location information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A - Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea area as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A monitoring device comprising:
a processor configured to
determine whether a driver is looking aside based on information representing a direction of a face of the driver using a predetermined determination criterion,
determine whether a current position of a host vehicle is within a roundabout based on map information, and
change the determination criterion so that it has not been determined that the driver is looking aside when the face of the driver is facing in the direction of an entry point of another vehicle into the roundabout, when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “A monitoring device comprising: a processor configured to ” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the device and processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “A monitoring device comprising: a processor configured to ” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5
Under Step 1:
Claims 2-5 are to a method comprising the steps of “wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout” (Claim 2), “wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes zero” (Claim 3), “wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether operation to a winker operating unit representing a change in a traveling direction of the host vehicle for exiting the roundabout has been carried out” (Claim 4), and “wherein the processor is further configured to change the determination criterion to be relaxed for the face of the driver facing in a curved direction of a road on which the host vehicle is traveling, when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout” (Claim 5), (thus the claims are to an method, Step 1: yes).
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and recite the limitations of “wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout” (Claim 2), “wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes zero” (Claim 3), “wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether operation to a winker operating unit representing a change in a traveling direction of the host vehicle for exiting the roundabout has been carried out” (Claim 4), and “wherein the processor is further configured to change the determination criterion to be relaxed for the face of the driver facing in a curved direction of a road on which the host vehicle is traveling, when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout” (Claim 5), These claims recite an abstract idea which is directed to mental process.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically here claims 2-3 only further define the mental process determination steps in the independent claim for example by defining how the vehicle position is determined. Claims 4-5 only add additional mental process steps for determining if a blinker is activated and mentally changing the determination criterion when the driver is facing the curved road. Therefore the claims do not includes any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
Step 2B, the claims 2-5 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as that discussed in Step 2A Prong Two.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims 2-5 fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-5 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akachi (US-20210253025) in view of Satomura (US-20170103653).
Regarding claim 1, Akachi teaches a monitoring device comprising a processor configured to (Paragraph [0032], "An on-vehicle information processing device and an on-vehicle information processing method in the first embodiment are used in an on-vehicle information processing device 10 installed in a host vehicle 1.")
determine whether a driver is looking aside based on information representing a direction of a face of the driver (Paragraph [0039], "The driver monitoring part 21 is connected to the camera 11 for a driver to monitor a direction of the driver D's face and a direction of the driver D's eyes from the image photographed by the camera 11 for a driver. The direction of the driver D's face and the direction of the driver D's eyes are represented as a direction of a driver D's sight,” here the system includes a driver monitoring component which determines a direction that a driver is looking)
using a predetermined determination criterion (Paragraph [0054], "The setting part 34 sets an allowable range P for the driver D's sight. The allowable range P for the driver D's sight set by the setting part 34 is a certain range for the driver D to look at for safety confirmation," here the system predetermines criteria for determining an acceptable region where a driver can look)
determine whether a current position of a host vehicle is within a intersection based on map information (Paragraph [0041], “The map information storage part 23 stores map information. The map information includes information on the number of lanes of a road, information on an intersection and a merging point, and information on a destination and a traveling route provided from a navigation system that navigates a traveling route to a destination.”) (Paragraph [0099], "The location where the safety confirmation is required such as a merging point and an intersection is thereby specified based on the positional information on the host vehicle 1, and the allowable range P for the driver D's sight in that location can be set," here the system uses vehicle positional information and map information to determine if a vehicle is currently within an intersection)
and change the determination criterion so that is has not been determined that the driver is looking aside when the face of the driver is facing in the direction of an entry point of another vehicle into the intersection (Paragraph [0101], "On the other hand, at the intersection without the traffic light, another vehicle may travel on the lane intersecting with the lane on which the host vehicle 1 travels. Accordingly, there is high necessity for the driver D of the host vehicle 1 to pay attention to the lane intersecting with the lane on which the host vehicle 1 travels, and to look at the direction opposite to the direction in which the host vehicle 1 turns. For this reason, at the intersection without the traffic light, it is appropriate to set the allowable range P for the driver D's sight as the first range P1 and the second range P2,” here the system is changing the criterion/allowable range based on the intersection determination to include a direction of an entry point of another vehicle into the intersection).
However Akachi does not explicitly teach that the intersection is a roundabout and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
Satomura teaches an information processing device to be mounted on motor vehicles, which is capable of suppressing driver's error recognition of traffic information on roundabouts including
the intersection is a roundabout (Paragraph [0029], “The map data contain location or position information of roundabouts and road information. A roundabout is a circular intersection designed for improved traffic flow traveling at slower speeds.”)
and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout (Paragraph [0038], “It can be considered as a different detection method that the state detection section 87 detects the state in which the own vehicle 100 enters the roundabout on the basis of the current location of the own vehicle 100 acquired by the position detection device 60, and the location of the roundabout acquired from the memory unit 70.”).
Akachi and Satomura are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling a vehicle based on determined conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the intersection is a roundabout and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout of Satomura in the system for determining the drivers gaze of Akachi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately identify the driving situation of the vehicle being a roundabout and improve the drivers experience by controlling the vehicle according to the accurate determination of vehicle state (Paragraph [0009], “which is capable of suppressing driver's error recognition of traffic information on roundabouts, and providing correct traffic information to the driver of the vehicle when the own vehicle drives at a roundabout”). Additionally here the system is simply substituting one known element for another known element in order to obtain predictable results according to KSR rationale B, in this case the combination is substituting one type of road intersection for another in order to perform a similar determination of an allowable direction for a drivers gaze.
Regarding claim 2, the combination Akachi and Satomura teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Akachi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the current position of the host vehicle is within the intersection when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the intersection based on the map information (Paragraph [0041], “The map information storage part 23 stores map information. The map information includes information on the number of lanes of a road, information on an intersection and a merging point, and information on a destination and a traveling route provided from a navigation system that navigates a traveling route to a destination.”) (Paragraph [0099], "The location where the safety confirmation is required such as a merging point and an intersection is thereby specified based on the positional information on the host vehicle 1, and the allowable range P for the driver D's sight in that location can be set," here the system uses vehicle positional information and map information to determine if a vehicle is currently within an intersection)
and it has been determined that entering operation of the host vehicle into the intersection has been completed (Paragraph [0101], “For this reason, at the intersection without the traffic light, it is appropriate to set the allowable range P for the driver D's sight as the first range P1 and the second range P2.”) (Paragraph [0120], “As illustrated in FIG. 18, the host vehicle 1 is about to turn left at the intersection without the traffic light. In this case, the allowable range P for the driver D's sight is set as the first range P1.”) (Paragraph [0093], “The location where the safety confirmation is required such as a merging point and an intersection is thereby specified based on the positional information on the host vehicle 1, and the allowable range P for the driver D′ sight in that location can be set,” here in each of these situations it is being determined if a vehicle has entered an intersection or merging zone and therefore the entering operation is completed).
However Akachi does not explicitly teach that the intersection is a roundabout and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
Satomura further teaches the intersection is a roundabout (Paragraph [0029], “The map data contain location or position information of roundabouts and road information. A roundabout is a circular intersection designed for improved traffic flow traveling at slower speeds.”)
and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout (Paragraph [0038], “It can be considered as a different detection method that the state detection section 87 detects the state in which the own vehicle 100 enters the roundabout on the basis of the current location of the own vehicle 100 acquired by the position detection device 60, and the location of the roundabout acquired from the memory unit 70.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Akachi and Satomura teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Akachi further teaches determine whether operation to a winker operating unit representing a change in a traveling direction of the host vehicle (Paragraph [0042], “The vehicle information acquisition part 24 acquires vehicle information such as information on a steering angle of a steering wheel, information on transition of a speed, and information on a blinker. The information on a blinker includes information whether a right blinker or a left blinker is turned on or turned off.”)
for exiting the intersection has been carried out at an exit point where the host vehicle exits the intersection (Paragraph [0085], “As illustrated in FIG. 11, the host vehicle 1 is about to turn left at the intersection with a traffic light S by turning on the left blinker. In this situation, the allowable range P for the driver D's sight is set as the first range P1 (Step S105 in FIG. 6),” here the system is determining that a vehicle is about to perform a turn for exiting the intersection using the blinker information)
and change the determination criterion to an initial value before the change of the determination criterion, when it has been determined that the operation to the winker operating unit is carried out (Paragraph [0064], “On the other hand, when the setting part 34 determines that the left blinker of the host vehicle 1 is turned off (No in Step S104), the inattentive driving determination process A ends,” here the system is determining that the blinker/winker has been turned off, this ends the process which modified the drivers gaze determination and therefore resets the system to the initial value before the blinker was activated).
However Akachi does not explicitly teach that the intersection is a roundabout and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
Satomura further teaches the intersection is a roundabout (Paragraph [0029], “The map data contain location or position information of roundabouts and road information. A roundabout is a circular intersection designed for improved traffic flow traveling at slower speeds.”)
and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout (Paragraph [0038], “It can be considered as a different detection method that the state detection section 87 detects the state in which the own vehicle 100 enters the roundabout on the basis of the current location of the own vehicle 100 acquired by the position detection device 60, and the location of the roundabout acquired from the memory unit 70.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Akachi and Satomura teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Akachi further teaches change the determination criterion to be relaxed for the face of the driver facing in a curved direction of a road on which the host vehicle is traveling (Paragraph [0056], “The setting part 34 sets the allowable range P for the driver D's sight depending on a situation. For example, when the host vehicle 1 turns left at an intersection with a traffic light, the setting part 34 sets the direction of the driver D's sight as the first range P1. When the host vehicle 1 turns right at the intersection with the traffic light, the setting part 34 sets the direction of the driver D's sight as the second range P2. When the host vehicle 1 turns left at the intersection without the traffic light, the setting part 34 sets the direction of the driver D's sight as the first range P1 and the second range P2. When the host vehicle 1 turns right at the intersection without the traffic light, the setting part 34 sets the direction of the driver D's sight as the first range P1 and the second range P2,” here the system is changing/relaxing the criterion for the drivers sight based on the specific situation for the vehicle including allowing the driver to face in a direction of a curve/turn the vehicle is making).
However Akachi does not explicitly teach that the intersection is a roundabout and determining that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout.
Satomura further teaches the intersection is a roundabout (Paragraph [0029], “The map data contain location or position information of roundabouts and road information. A roundabout is a circular intersection designed for improved traffic flow traveling at slower speeds.”)
when it has been determined that the current position of the host vehicle is within the roundabout (Paragraph [0038], “It can be considered as a different detection method that the state detection section 87 detects the state in which the own vehicle 100 enters the roundabout on the basis of the current location of the own vehicle 100 acquired by the position detection device 60, and the location of the roundabout acquired from the memory unit 70.”).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akachi (US-20210253025) in view of Satomura (US-20170103653) and further in view of Stein (US-20240161331).
Regarding claim 3, the combination Akachi and Satomura teaches the system as discussed above in claim 1, Satomura further teaches determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction (Paragraph [0062], “a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction, or when a yaw rate of the host vehicle changes from a yaw rate in the first direction to zero and changes to a yaw rate in the second direction”).
Akachi and Satomura are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling a vehicle based on determined conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction of Satomura in the system for determining the drivers gaze of Akachi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately identify the driving situation of the vehicle being a roundabout and improve the drivers experience by controlling the vehicle according to the accurate determination of vehicle state (Paragraph [0009], “which is capable of suppressing driver's error recognition of traffic information on roundabouts, and providing correct traffic information to the driver of the vehicle when the own vehicle drives at a roundabout”). Additionally here the system is simply substituting one known element for another known element in order to obtain predictable results according to KSR rationale B, in this case the combination is substituting one type of road intersection for another in order to perform a similar determination of an allowable direction for a drivers gaze.
However the combination does not explicitly teach determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes zero from a steering angle in a first direction for entering the roundabout and becomes a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction, OR when a yaw rate of the host vehicle changes from a yaw rate in the first direction to zero and changes to a yaw rate in the second direction.
Stein teaches systems and methods determine, based on the identified target trajectory, a position of the target vehicle including
determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes zero from a steering angle in a first direction for entering the roundabout and becomes a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction, OR when a yaw rate of the host vehicle changes from a yaw rate in the first direction to zero and changes to a yaw rate in the second direction (Paragraph [0400], “FIG. 38A illustrates the positions of host vehicle 3801 relative the target vehicle 3803 and roundabout 3805 at times t1, t2 and t3. From the positions in acquired images of target vehicle 3803 and/or based on other motion characteristics associated with the target vehicle (e.g., object scaling across acquired images, etc.), a processor may determine a trajectory for target vehicle 3803 (e.g., a tracked trajectory along which the target vehicle has traveled from time t1 to time t3). Entering the traffic circle, target vehicle 3803 may make a right turn. The initial turn angle may be near 90 degrees to the right (relative to the original direction of travel at times t1 and t2). Further, as the target vehicle travels around the traffic circle, the target vehicle turns continuously to its left until it exits from the traffic circle,” here the system is analyzing a trajectory of a vehicle, the tracked trajectory including a steering angle to the right as the vehicle enters the traffic circle the steering angle becoming zero an then continuing left as the vehicle continues around the circle, right and left being the first and second directions respectively) (Paragraph [0403], “The above method for determine the lane position of a target vehicle may be applied to any multilane curve or traffic circle,” here the system uses the analyzed trajectory to determine that the vehicle lane position is within the traffic circle and the entering operation has been completed).
Akachi, Satomura, and Stein are analogous art as they are both generally related to systems for controlling a vehicle based on determined conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include determine that the entering operation of the host vehicle has been completed when a steering angle of a steering wheel of the host vehicle becomes zero from a steering angle in a first direction for entering the roundabout and becomes a steering angle in a second direction opposite to the first direction, OR when a yaw rate of the host vehicle changes from a yaw rate in the first direction to zero and changes to a yaw rate in the second direction of Stein in the system for determining the drivers gaze of Akachi and Satomura with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the confidence of the system in analyzing road conditions and geometry to more accurately determine the position of the vehicle (Paragraph [0178], “As vehicle 200 approaches the junction, at step 564, processing unit 110 may update the confidence level associated with the analyzed junction geometry and the detected traffic lights. For instance, the number of traffic lights estimated to appear at the junction as compared with the number actually appearing at the junction may impact the confidence level. Thus, based on the confidence level, processing unit 110 may delegate control to the driver of vehicle 200 in order to improve safety conditions.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li (US-11654923) teaches an act-of-looking-aside determination device in which a determination reference range changer changes a determination reference range in an act-of-looking-aside determiner by a predetermined angle in a curve direction based on information on a curve direction detected by a curve detector. Yokota (US-10467489) a driver performing a lane check by looking back for safe driving can be alerted based on the driver's gaze deviating from a view area for usual driving. Hyuga (US-20190147273) teaches an alert control apparatus includes a first obtaining unit that obtains first information about a gaze or face orientation of a driver, a distracted driving determiner that outputs a detection signal when detecting distracted driving, a second obtaining unit that obtains second information indicating whether an intersection is recognized.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER FEES whose telephone number is (303)297-4343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 5:30 MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GEORGE FEES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights