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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 14, 16, and 20 recite, “driver/passenger”. It is unclear whether applicant is referring to both driver and passenger, or only one of driver or passenger. Applicant is requested to draw precise metes and bounds on the claim language by either amending as:
driver/passenger -> driver and passenger
driver/passenger -> one of driver and passenger
driver/passenger -> driver or passenger
For the purpose of prior art examination, Examiner assumes, “one of driver or passenger”.
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 1-3, 8-10, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to an autonomous driving method performed by an autonomous driving system (ADS) monitoring driver’s state and providing modification to the autonomous driving functionalities. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 follow 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:
An autonomous driving method performed by an autonomous driving system (ADS), comprising:
receiving real-time physiological data of a driver/passenger collected by a monitoring device;
degrading an autonomous driving service being executed by an autonomous driving vehicle, when a difference between the real-time physiological data and a health physiological data range is greater than a preset value, and a duration in which the real-time physiological data deviates from the health physiological data range is greater than a first preset duration, wherein an operational design domain (ODD) is deployed on the ADS, and the health physiological data range is an applicable range added to the ODD in advance; and
executing a first driving policy based on the difference and the duration;
wherein the first driving policy corresponds to a health level of the driver/passenger and the health level of the driver/passenger corresponds to takeover capability levels of taking over the vehicle control right by the driver/passenger.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “when a difference between…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. passenger) in the autonomous vehicle observing/monitoring driver’s state and condition and formulating a judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
An autonomous driving method performed by an autonomous driving system (ADS), comprising:
receiving real-time physiological data of a driver/passenger collected by a monitoring device;
degrading an autonomous driving service being executed by an autonomous driving vehicle, when a difference between the real-time physiological data and a health physiological data range is greater than a preset value, and a duration in which the real-time physiological data deviates from the health physiological data range is greater than a first preset duration, wherein an operational design domain (ODD) is deployed on the ADS, and the health physiological data range is an applicable range added to the ODD in advance; and
executing a first driving policy based on the difference and the duration.
wherein the first driving policy corresponds to a health level of the driver/passenger and the health level of the driver/passenger corresponds to takeover capability levels of taking over the vehicle control right by the driver/passenger.
For the following reason, 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 “receiving real-time physiological data…,” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a generic computer (a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). This is considered in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding the additional limitation of “degrading…” and “executing…” Examiner submits that these limitations merely use generic computing components (“autonomous driving system” including generic “processor” (applicant’s specification, paragraph 29)) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr,450 U.S. at 191-92).
Also, the mere presence of the ODD in the ADS does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., generally linking “observing/monitoring driver’s state and formulating a judgement” of the judicial exception in a particular technological environment or field of use, which is autonomous driving setting).
Also, the limitation “wherein the first driving policy corresponds to…health level of the driver/passenger corresponds to…” merely defines what claimed “first driving policy” and “health level of the driver/passenger” is and do not add any meaningful limit to integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Lastly, limitation, “the health physiological data range is an applicable range added to the ODD in advance; and” is merely storing data in a memory and the courts have found such activity to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional as well as insignificant extra-solution activity. (Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;, MPEP 2106.05(d))
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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 “ADS”, “ODD is deployed on the ADS” amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As noted above, applicant’s specification recites that ADS comprises a processor to perform functions, but does not further state that processor is more than a simple generic processor. Also, the additional limitations of “receiving…”, “degrading…”, “health physiological data…added to the ODD”, “executing…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Also, additional limitations “wherein the first driving policy corresponds to…health level of the driver/passenger corresponds to…” merely defines what claimed “first driving policy” and “health level of the driver/passenger” is and do not add any meaningful limit.
Further additional elements, such as “ODD” and “ADS”” do not amount to an innovative concept, since as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a generic computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved (See, MPEP 2106.05 I.A.). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…”, “health physiological data…added to the ODD” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification (par. 8) recites that the monitoring device is merely conventional monitoring device, and the specification further does not provide any indication that the processor/memory is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle (specification, paragraph 29, conventional memory for storing). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Lastly, applicant’s specification, paragraphs 4, 67 recites standard practice (e.g. Automated driving classification standard J3016TM, widely used by SAE International) that is implemented to change autonomous driving level based on ODD condition. Thus, applicant’s paragraph 67 recite that claimed degrading and executing a specific policy for autonomous driving is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 8-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. additional insignificant extra-solution activities) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3 and 8-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-3 and 8-10 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 11-13 and 18-20 recite same or substantially similar limitations as claims 1-3 and 8-10. Therefore claims 11-13 and 18-20 are rejected under same rationales.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by MATSUNAMI HIDETOSHI (WO 2019221240 A1). Herein, Examiner relies on Matsunami (US 20210197832 A1) for citation, which is US filing publication of WO 2019221240 A1.
In regards to claim 1, Matsunami teaches, An autonomous driving method performed by an autonomous driving system (ADS), comprising: (See figs. 14, 16-17, and paragraphs 204-206, autonomous stoppage of the vehicle in a safe stoppable location as illustrated in fig. 16)
receiving real-time physiological data of a driver/passenger collected by a monitoring device; (See fig. 14, S501, paragraph 195, fig. 4B, sensors 13, fig. 8, reference number 41b, heart rate measured by the pulse meter… blood glucose level measured by the interstitial fluid glucose level meter)
degrading an autonomous driving service being executed by an autonomous driving vehicle, (See fig. 17, S701, whereby figures 15 and 17 add features to the stop already described in fig. 14 at step S513. Also see paragraph 199, The criteria determination unit 31b transmits a stop signal for the vehicle 50 to the vehicle control unit 51, and the vehicle control unit 51 stops the vehicle 50 (S513).) when a difference between the real-time physiological data and a health physiological data range is greater than a preset value, (See paragraph 195, 198, 227, fig. 14, S509, claimed “health physiological data range” is any number below dangerous value. Also claimed “preset value” can be any positive number. Although claim invention computes “difference”, this step is no different from comparison made in Matsunami, where difference can be simply calculated which indicates when zero or positive (biometric information – dangerous value), driver is in a dangerous state and if negative value, biometric information is below the dangerous value. This is mere design choice. See specifically paragraph 227, The criteria determination unit 31b determines that the biometric information is not greater than or equal to the dangerous value (S509). The criteria determination unit 31b transmits an emergency signal to the vehicle control unit 51 when the heart rate is equal to or higher than a predetermined number…paragraph 195, when the heart rate measured by the pulse meter is greater than or equal to a predetermined number, or when the blood glucose level measured by the interstitial fluid glucose level meter is less than a predetermined number, the criteria determination unit 31b transmits a signal to the output unit 33. Same interpretation can be applied for S503-S505, where display stop recommendation can also be interpreted) and a duration in which the real-time physiological data deviates from the health physiological data range is greater than a first preset duration, (See paragraph 227, See specifically paragraph 227, The criteria determination unit 31b determines that the biometric information is not greater than or equal to the dangerous value (S509). The criteria determination unit 31b transmits an emergency signal to the vehicle control unit 51 when the heart rate is equal to or higher than a predetermined number… Counting of heart beat rate inherently require counting the heart beats during a preset duration. Also see fig. 14, S503-505) wherein an operational design domain (ODD) is deployed on the ADS, and the health physiological data range is an applicable range added to the ODD in advance; and (See fig. 8, control unit 31, safe driving assistance in-vehicle device 30, criteria determination unit 31b, paragraph 168, the driver-specific permissible information is stored on information storage unit 32a. Such data can be interpreted as defining an ODD)
executing a first driving policy based on the difference and the duration; wherein the first driving policy corresponds to a health level of the driver/passenger and the health level of the driver/passenger corresponds to takeover capability levels of taking over the vehicle control right by the driver/passenger. (See above citation with regards to various health condition/level. Also see fig. 14, S505 OR S511, paragraph 198, and also fig. 17, when the blood glucose level measured by the interstitial fluid glucose concentration measurement part 41b is less than 50 mg/dL, the vehicle control unit 51 blinks the hazard lamp of the vehicle 50, and the audio output unit 33b outputs a sound for calling attention to the surroundings to the outside of the vehicle when the vehicle 50 stops urgently (S511)…paragraph 199, The criteria determination unit 31b transmits a stop signal for the vehicle 50 to the vehicle control unit 51, and the vehicle control unit 51 stops the vehicle 50 (S513)….abstract, a safe driving assistance in-vehicle device is connected to a vehicle control unit controlling a vehicle driven by the driver, and an operating state of the vehicle is controlled based on a determination result by the criteria determination unit.)
In regards to claim 4, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an autonomous driving level is L4 or L5, and the step of executing the first driving policy based on the difference and the duration comprises: determining a health level of the driver/passenger based on the difference and the duration; and executing the first driving policy based on the health level when determining that the health level is a mild abnormality, wherein the first driving policy comprises controlling, by the ADS, the autonomous driving vehicle to: decrease a speed to be lower than a preset speed, travel on a roadside, or turn on a hazard warning signal light. (See fig. 14, S503, detecting a mild abnormality and S505 for displaying a stop recommendation, and step 509 for detecting a severe abnormality and S511 for a blinking of hazard lamp and/or figs. 16-17 for stopping the vehicle on a roadside (e.g. L4-L5 is known as full autonomous setting, and Matsunami provides full self-driving during stopping the vehicle on roadside, see at least fig. 17 and associated paragraphs). Examiner recommends clarifying claim 4 if applicant intended to mean that vehicle was being driven L4 or L5 initially prior to executing first driving policy, determining health level, etc.)
In regards to claim 5, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 4, further comprising: executing the first driving policy based on the health level when determining that the health level is a severe abnormality, wherein the first driving policy comprises controlling, by the ADS, the autonomous driving vehicle to: slowly decrease the speed to zero, stop on a roadside, turn on a hazard warning signal light, run at an idle speed, turn on an external circulation of the vehicle, turn on an internal circulation of the vehicle, set an in-vehicle target temperature, or unlock a central door lock. (See fig. 14, S503, detecting a mild abnormality and S505 for displaying a stop recommendation, and step 509 for detecting a severe abnormality and S511 for a blinking of hazard lamp and/or figs. 16-17 for slowing speed and stopping the vehicle on a roadside (e.g. L4-L5 is known as full autonomous setting, and Matsunami provides full self-driving during stopping the vehicle on roadside, see at least fig. 17 and associated paragraphs))
In regards to claim 6, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein an autonomous driving level is L3, and the step of executing the first driving policy based on the difference and the duration comprises: making the ADS invariably occupy control permission of the autonomous driving vehicle; determining a health level of the driver/passenger based on the difference and the duration; and executing the first driving policy based on the health level when determining that the health level is a mild abnormality, wherein the first driving policy comprises controlling, by the ADS, the autonomous driving vehicle to: decrease a speed to be lower than a preset speed, travel on a roadside, or turn on a hazard warning signal light. (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, level 3 autonomous driving is also known as conditional driving automation. In Matsunami, when a certain condition is met (e.g. emergency), automated driving system takes over control and autonomous driving is performed transitioned from manual driving (exactly what conventional L3 autonomous driving does). Thus, method disclosed by Matsunami is applicable to an L3 autonomous vehicle. See fig. 14, S503, detecting a mild abnormality and S505 for displaying a stop recommendation, and step 509 for detecting a severe abnormality and S511 for a blinking of hazard lamp and/or figs. 16-17 for stopping the vehicle on a roadside)
In regards to claim 7, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 6, further comprising: executing the first driving policy based on the health level when determining that the health level is a severe abnormality, wherein the first driving policy comprises controlling, by the ADS, the autonomous driving vehicle to: slowly decrease the speed to zero, stop on a roadside, turn on a hazard warning signal light, run at an idle speed, turn on an external circulation of the vehicle, turn on an internal circulation of the vehicle, set an in-vehicle target temperature, or unlock a central door lock. (See fig. 14, S503, detecting a mild abnormality and S505 for displaying a stop recommendation, and step 509 for detecting a severe abnormality and S511 for a blinking of hazard lamp and/or figs. 16-17 for slowing speed and stopping the vehicle on a roadside, and Matsunami provides full self-driving during slowing and stopping the vehicle on roadside, see at least fig. 17 and associated paragraphs))
In regards to claim 9, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating an event log based on the real-time physiological data, wherein the event log records the real-time physiological data and an operation of the ADS during a period when the real-time physiological data deviates from the health physiological data range; and periodically reporting the event log to a cloud server corresponding to the autonomous driving vehicle. (See fig. 14, S507 and S517 and associated paragraphs. Also see paragraph 128)
In regards to claim 10, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the real-time physiological data comprises: real-time blood pressure, a real-time heart rate, real-time blood oxygen, or a real-time body temperature of the driver/passenger. (See paragraph 20, 238, heart rate, skin temperature, oxygen saturation, blood pressure is measured)
Claims 11, 14-17, and 19-20 are similar in scope to claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 8, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUNAMI HIDETOSHI (WO 2019221240 A1). Herein, Examiner relies on Matsunami (US 20210197832 A1) for citation, which is US filing publication of WO 2019221240 A1, in view of Tamagaki et al. (US 20180111628 A1)
In regards to claim 2, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after the step of executing the first driving policy based on the difference and the duration, (See fig. 14, S511 and associated paragraphs),
Matsunami discloses real-time physiological data is not restored to fall within the health physiological data range as abnormality condition (see fig. 14, S509) however does not specifically teach, the method further comprises: sending an authorization request when the […abnormal condition persists] within a second preset duration; and executing a second driving policy when the driver/passenger accepts the authorization request.
Tamagaki further teaches, the method further comprises: sending an authorization request when the […abnormal condition persists] within a second preset duration; and executing a second driving policy when the driver/passenger accepts the authorization request. (See fig. 4-5, at T3, first alert is provided, and then if abnormality persists until T4, additional alerts are provided such as visual prompt shown in figs. 11-13. Upon selecting of yes in the prompt, vehicle performs stop operation (e.g. fig. 14, “traveling for evacuation”, and also see fig. 6). Lastly see paragraph 90, The second notification is generated to ask the driver to select either execution or no execution of the automatic evacuation control.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Matsunami to further comprise method taught by Tamagaki because by providing driver with option to select via user interface would have been desired, thus unwanted evacuation procedure can be avoided and further improve user experience while still maintaining automatic switch when really dangerous situation occurs where driver is unable to respond.
In regards to claim 3, Matsunami-Tamagaki teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the second driving policy comprises: stopping on a roadside, calling for a rescue, establishing a communication connection to a medical institution, planning a traveling path between the autonomous driving vehicle and the medical institution, reserving a medical resource, or requesting to arrange an emergency medical treatment channel. (See Tamagaki fig. 6, 14, and associated paragraphs, stoppling on a roadside and calling for rescue)
In regards to claim 8, Matsunami teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after the step of executing the first driving policy based on the difference and the duration, (See fig. 14, S505) the method further comprises: controlling the autonomous driving vehicle to resume execution of the autonomous driving service when the real-time physiological data is restored to fall within the health physiological data range within the second preset duration. (In rejection of claim 1, Examiner interpreted “degrading an autonomous driving service” as slowing and stopping on a roadside of the autonomous driving vehicle. Examiner notes that claimed “autonomous driving “service”” is not necessarily the autonomous driving functionality itself, but any “service” related to autonomous driving capable vehicle. Thus, it can be interpreted that when driver returns back to normal state, claimed “resume execution of the autonomous driving service” is equivalent to returning back to manual driving of the autonomous driving vehicle by the driver as taught in Ishikawa (see fig. 14, S509, if “NO”, steps S511-517 are NOT performed and driver drives the vehicle as normal). Examiner recommends further amending claim 1 and 8 to clarify “autonomous driving service” and/or term “degrading” in claim 1)
Matsunami does not specifically teach, [abnormality returning to normal state] within the second preset duration
Tamagaki further teaches, [abnormality returning to normal state] within the second preset duration (See fig. 5, 9-10 and associated paragraphs, between T3-T5, driver returns back to normal state such as pressing “no” in fig. 11. This is possible since driver’s state is continuously measured in real-time (abstract, the abnormality of the driver is detected continuously…paragraph 77-79, The formal determination of the abnormal state is made when the abnormality is continuously detected by the DSM 11 for a second threshold period of time TH2 (e.g., 2.0 seconds; see FIG. 4). The second threshold period of time TH2 is set to be longer than a general upper limit time (approximately 1.6 seconds) for a driver engaged in inattentive driving… When a driver abnormality acquired by the abnormality information acquisition section 81 is still continuously detected…From disclosure in paragraphs 77-79, it can be concluded that abnormality condition is monitored in real-time and normal condition is capable of being detected before T5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Matsunami to further comprise method taught by Tamagaki because by providing driver with option to select via user interface would have been desired, thus unwanted evacuation procedure can be avoided and further improve user experience while still maintaining automatic switch when really dangerous situation occurs where driver is unable to respond.
Claims 12-13 and 18 are similar in scope to claims 2-3 and 8, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights