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
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi et al [US 20160009296 A1] in view of Prakah-Asante et al [US 20150224998 A1].
As for claim 1¸ Iguchi discloses assistance function presentation device for presenting an operation method for a driving assistance function of a vehicle (Fig. 10), comprising:
an information acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding environment information of the vehicle (Fig. 2, items 50-54; paragraphs 0051-0055 and 0060) ;
a situation determination unit configured to determine whether or not an assistance function is suitable (paragraphs 0060-0061); and
a presentation control unit configured to present the operation method to the driver when the driving assistance function is available or in operation and it is determined by the situation determination unit that a current situation is suitable (paragraphs 0062-0065 and 0102).
Iguchi discloses a need in the art to reduce the load on drivers of a vehicle and to improve convenience to the users by providing suggestions of vehicle functions. Iguchi also discloses monitoring the user (paragraph 0053). Iguchi does not specifically disclose that the situation determination unit is configured to determine whether or not a driver of the vehicle is in a high-load situation in which a load on driving operations is high; and presenting the operation method to the driver when a current situation is not the high-load situation. In an analogous art, Prakah-Asante discloses that it was known in the art to selectively delay or prevent driver interface tasks (assistance functions) from being executed based on workload (Abstract, paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0034-0035). Since Iguchi discloses reducing the load on the driver, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Iguchi to include a method for determining workload of the driver and preventing vehicle functions when the driver is in high-load situations, as suggested by Prakah-Asante. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for determining the load on a driver and subsequently taking steps for reducing the load on said driver and increasing convenient use of vehicle functions.
Claim 2 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. The skilled artisan would have recognized that the Adaptive Cruise Control function of the vehicle would adjust the speed of the vehicle accordingly.
Claim 3 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Examiner takes official notice that it was known in the art for vehicles to include obstacle recognition sensors to detect road signs such as speed limit signs. As such, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Iguchi’s situation determination unit with the perimeter monitoring apparatus and the environment acquisition part to collect information from road signs. Having these teachings on hand it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use this information when determining what type of information to present to the driver. The skilled artisan would recognize the advantages of suggesting that the vehicle speed be adjusted to follow applicable traffic laws.
Claims 4-6 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1-3 above. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to use the vehicle, environmental, and/or user data obtained by the system to determine whether or not the operation method should be presented to the driver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited reference discloses vehicle drive assist systems and methods that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights