DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
2. Claims 1 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0308641) in view of Minami et al. (WIPO Publication # WO 2017/056707).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Sato discloses a method of transitioning control of a vehicle (figs 3-6, etc), the method comprising:
navigating a vehicle according to a first level of autonomous capability, the first level of autonomous capability defining a first set of autonomous competencies of the vehicle (figs 3, 5a, 6a, etc);
notifying a human operator of the vehicle with a notification of an impending change in vehicle capability to the second level of autonomous capability (fig 3, fig 4: S2-S5 and S6-10, figs 5b-c, 6b-c, 7, Paragraph 67, 72, 77, etc), and
navigating the vehicle according to the second level of autonomous capability (fig 4: S6, figs 5d, 6d, etc).
Sato fails to disclose the notification having a user intrusiveness level based at least in part on a change in proximity of a hazard.
In the same field of endeavor, Minami discloses a notification having a user intrusiveness level (P38, etc: volume, frequency, frequency shift, and/or volume shift of notification sound) based at least in part on a change in proximity of a hazard. (P38, etc: based on proximity of hazard and change in proximity of hazard).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to do so, as taught by Minami, in order to improve safety by providing the driver with information about the proximity and change in proximity of hazards (P38, etc).
3. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0308641) in view of Hackenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0094899).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Sato discloses a method of transitioning control of a vehicle (figs 3-6, etc), the method comprising:
navigating a vehicle according to a first level of autonomous capability, the first level of autonomous capability defining a first set of autonomous competencies of the vehicle (figs 3, 5a, 6a, etc);
notifying a human operator of the vehicle with a notification of an impending change in vehicle capability to the second level of autonomous capability (fig 3, fig 4: S2-S5 and S6-10, figs 5b-c, 6b-c, 7, Paragraph 67, 72, 77, etc), and
navigating the vehicle according to the second level of autonomous capability (fig 4: S6, figs 5d, 6d, etc).
Sato fails to disclose the notification having a user intrusiveness level based at least in part on a change in proximity of a hazard.
In the same field of endeavor, Hackenberg discloses a notification having a user intrusiveness level based at least in part on a change in proximity of a hazard. (figs 2-3, P8-10, 32, etc: intrusiveness level based on proximity and change in proximity of end of autopilot route section).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to do so, as taught by Hackenberg, in order to improve safety by providing the driver with information about the proximity and change in proximity of hazards (figs 2-3, P8-10, 32, etc).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sato further discloses receiving an indication that the hazard is impending (fig 3, P8-10, etc: impending end of autopilot route section, or P33 impeding collision with vehicle ahead); and determining the impending change in vehicle capability is urgent responsive to receiving the indication (fig 3, P8-10, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sato further discloses receiving the indication from a third-party source (figs 1 and 3, P8-10, etc: such as vehicle sensor).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sato fails to disclose that the third-party source is another vehicle.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive indication of an impending hazard from another vehicle. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sato to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety by providing the driver with information about hazards that the driver’s vehicle is unable to detect, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Sato further discloses that the third-party source is a sensor within or proximate a roadway being traveled by the vehicle (figs 1 and 3, P8-10, etc: vehicle sensor would be sensor proximate a roadway being traveled by the vehicle).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 16-17, Sato fails to disclose determining a time period for which the notification is displayed in advance of an encounter with the hazard based on an alertness level of the human operator or a driving history of the human operator.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a notification display time based on an alertness level of the human operator or a driving history of the human operator. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sato to do so, as well known in the art, in order to increase the probability that the driver sees the notification and has sufficient time to respond to it, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sato further discloses that the notification includes a text notification (figs 5-7, etc), but fails to disclose that the text notification indicates an expected time until the hazard is encountered.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate an expected time until the hazard is encountered. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sato to do so, as well known in the art, in order to facilitate an appropriate driver response to the hazard, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sato further discloses that the notification indicates that greater autonomous capability is desired to handle the hazard (P52: for obstacles; Hackenberg P33: for sudden vehicle ahead, driver distraction, or severe driver fatigue).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Sato further discloses that the notification includes an audible notification (figs 5-7, etc; Hackenberg fig 2), but fails to disclose that the audible notification indicates an expected time until the hazard is encountered.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate an expected time until the hazard is encountered. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Sato to do so, as well known in the art, in order to facilitate an appropriate driver response to the hazard, with predictable results.
4. Claims 3-4 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0308641) in view of Hackenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0094899), and further view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 11,250,514).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, Sato fails to disclose that the third-party source is another vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses that the third-party source is another vehicle (col 3: 64- col4 :2, col 20: 11-25, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to do so, as taught by Kumar, in order to improve safety by enabling transitions based on information not available to the original vehicle (col 3: 64- col4 :2, col 20: 11-25, etc).
5. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0308641) in view of Minami et al. (WIPO Publication # WO 2017/056707), and further in view of Hackenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0094899).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sato in view of Minami fails to discloses receiving an indication that the hazard is impending; and determining the impending change in vehicle capability is urgent responsive to receiving the indication.
In the same field of endeavor, Hackenberg discloses receiving an indication that the hazard is impending (fig 3, P8-10, etc: impending end of autopilot route section, or P33 impeding collision with vehicle ahead); and determining the impending change in vehicle capability is urgent responsive to receiving the indication (fig 3, P8-10, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to do so, as taught by Hackenberg, in order to improve safety by providing the driver with information about an impending hazard (fig 3, P8-10, etc).
Regarding claims 3-10 and 13-20, see the rejections over Sato in view of Hackenberg above.
6. Claims 3-4 and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2019/0308641) in view of Minami et al. (WIPO Publication # WO 2017/056707) and Hackenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2015/0094899), and further view of Kumar et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 11,250,514).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 13-14, Sato fails to disclose that the third-party source is another vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses that the third-party source is another vehicle (col 3: 64- col4 :2, col 20: 11-25, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato to do so, as taught by Kumar, in order to improve safety by enabling transitions based on information not available to the original vehicle (col 3: 64- col4 :2, col 20: 11-25, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights