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 .
Summary
The Amendment filed on 27 February 2025 has been acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 8 – 10, 13, and 17 have been amended.
Currently, claims 1- 20 are pending and considered as set forth.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This application claims the benefit and priority of U.S. provisional application 62980142 filed on 02/21/2020.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification are sufficient to overcome the drawing and specification objections set forth in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection,
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant responded that the amendment to the claim should overcome the previous 112 (b) rejection on define the conditions for satisfaction of trigger criterion. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and traverses that the amendment merely further define what the trigger criterion is, and still failed to how the trigger criterion is actually satisfied. Therefore, the Examiner still finds the claim limitations indefinite.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection,
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 15 and 17 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.
With regards to claims 1, 15 and 17, recite the limitation “detecting the satisfaction of the trigger criterion” it is unclear and 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.
Though [0014] in the specification states “In response to detecting the satisfaction of the trigger criterion, the processor is configured to modify a configuration of the internal lighting system to output a second lighting configuration” and [0015] states “In response to the satisfaction of the trigger criterion, the computing device applies a model to select a second lighting configuration that is different from the first lighting configuration”, the examples do not further define the conditions for satisfaction beyond that of subjective analysis. Hence this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite. This limitation will be examined as best understood.
Claims 2-14, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected under 112(b) for being dependent of rejected claims 1 and 17.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bel (US 2018/0086259A1) and in further view of Miloser (US 2018/0118218 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Bel teaches: A vehicle, comprising: an internal lighting system comprising a plurality of lighting devices (see at least [0001] wherein “an interior lighting system for an autonomous motor vehicle as well as a motor vehicle comprising such a system” and [0005] wherein “an interior lighting luminous device comprising a plurality of luminous sub-assemblies”)
the internal lighting system capable of outputting multiple different lighting configurations (see at least [0005] wherein “…each luminous sub-assembly being configured in an interior lighting static mode or in an interior lighting dynamic mode”), each lighting configuration defined by at least one of a brightness of emitted light, a color of emitted light, (see at least [0012] wherein “at least one luminous sub-assembly is configured, in a dynamic mode, to diffuse an ambient light, the intensity and/or the color and/or the orientation thereof varying”), a number and identity of the plurality of lighting devices that are turned on, (see at least [0062] wherein “The system may also be configured so that the control modules control each of the luminous sub-assemblies in a coordinated manner, i.e. each luminous sub-assembly is able to emit a light signal which is different”), or a time-based sequence of changes to the brightness or color of one or more of the plurality of lighting devices; (see at least [0055] wherein “…whilst the dynamic lighting mode corresponds to a lighting mode in which the light signal emitted varies over time”);
one or more sensors configured to capture data indicative of a trigger criterion (see at least [0006] wherein “…a control module which is configured to detect and analyse the events, or a warning of an upcoming situation…” (examiner interprets detect events/warning as a trigger criterion)); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the internal lighting system and the one or more sensors (see at least [0010] wherein “each luminous sub-assembly is controlled by a control module which is configured to receive a parameter from an autonomous driving module…”)
the processor configured to: cause the internal lighting system to output a first lighting configuration (see at least [0010] wherein “each luminous sub-assembly is controlled by a control module which is configured to receive a parameter from an autonomous driving module and to define an interior lighting dynamic mode” and [0059] wherein “a control step E4 is implemented for each of the control modules which are respectively associated with each luminous sub-assembly and which are configured to provide control commands to the luminous sub-assembly which it controls, and in particular commands for illuminating and/or extinguishing light sources”).
Bel does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the trigger criterion comprises one or more contextualized emotional indicators, and the one or more contextualized emotional indicators are generated from a combination of primitive emotional indication, sensor data, and historical data;
detect, based on the data captured by the one or more sensors, the trigger criterion has been satisfied; and
modify a configuration of the internal lighting system to output a second lighting configuration in response to detecting the satisfaction of the trigger criterion.
Miloser teaches the limitations of:
Wherein the trigger criterion comprises one or more contextualized emotional indicators, and the one or more contextualized emotional indicators are generated from a combination of primitive emotional indication, sensor data, and historical data (See at least paragraph 6; a computer-implemented method includes enacting a predefined change to a vehicle environment in a predefined proximity to a location of the passenger originating the detected emotional state, responsive to detection of a predefined passenger emotional state using vehicle sensors.);
detect, based on the data captured by the one or more sensors, the trigger criterion has been satisfied (See at least paragraph 6); and
modify a configuration of the internal lighting system to output a second lighting configuration in response to detecting the satisfaction of the trigger criterion (See at least paragraph 31 – 32; As users become more comfortable with adaptive “thinking” technology, this provides for new opportunities to improve machine functionality. In the illustrative embodiments, for example, a vehicle will respond to changes in user emotional state. Some of this response is completely transparent-for example, changing traction control to a handling state if a fear emotion is detected (in the hopes that advanced handling helps mitigate a potential accident). Some of the possible responses, on the other hand, are intentionally noticeable to users. For example, it may be the case that a vehicle attempts to “calm” an angry driver by adjusting lighting or music. At one point in time, people may have found this “behavior” from a vehicle highly intrusive. As people become more accustomed to interacting with machines on a more integrated level, however, the mindset with regards to having a vehicle “calm” a driver or passenger may change. If a user knows that they do not want to drive angrily, but sometimes loses his temper when driving, the user can preset mood lighting and music selection for when a vehicle detects that he is angry. Since the user explicitly requested this behavior from the vehicle, it may seem far less intrusive than, for example, the vehicle attempting to autonomously calm the user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify changing lighting configuration of a vehicle based on a triggering events or warning of Bel, to include wherein the trigger criterion comprises one or more contextualized emotional indicators, and the one or more contextualized emotional indicators are generated from a combination of primitive emotional indication, sensor data, and historical data; detect, based on the data captured by the one or more sensors, the trigger criterion has been satisfied; and modify a configuration of the internal lighting system to output a second lighting configuration in response to detecting the satisfaction of the trigger criterion as taught by Miloser in order to take responsive action based on the detected emotional state (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 2,
Bel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, Bel teaches: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion comprises an action related to a beginning of an operating session in the vehicle or an end of the operating session in the vehicle (see at least [0056] wherein “This first selection step of the lighting mode may be implemented by an automatic action 28, for example at the start-up of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 6,
Bel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, Bel teaches: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a context of the vehicle (see at least [0007] wherein “A parameter from a control module may, for example, be a driving state…” and [0064] wherein “…the control modules are configured to receive in real time, or at least with each change of state, status information 13 from the autonomous driving module indicating if the autonomous vehicle is in an autonomous or manual driving mode.”).
Regarding claim 7,
Bel discloses all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Additionally, Bel teaches: The vehicle of claim 6, wherein the context of the vehicle comprises at least one of a parameter of an environment outside the vehicle, an operating mode of the vehicle, or an activity in which a user is engaged inside the vehicle (see at least [0007] wherein “A parameter from a control module may, for example, be a driving state, namely if the vehicle is in autonomous driving mode or manual driving mode…”).
Regarding claim 8,
Bel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, Bel teaches: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a determination that a user of the vehicle will need to perform an action with respect to operating the vehicle, and wherein the second lighting configuration comprises a lighting alert to notify the user to perform the action (see at least [0007] wherein “A parameter from a control module may, for example, be a driving state…or a warning of an upcoming situation, for example if an urgent situation involves the driver having to take up the steering wheel by hand.” and [0008] wherein “…possible to control the triggering of a dynamic projection, i.e. a light signal which varies in intensity and/or in color as a function of the risk of interference to the driver.”).
Regarding claim 15,
Bel teaches: “The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion is a first trigger criterion during an operating session of the vehicle” (see at least [0056] wherein “This first selection step of the lighting mode may be implemented by an automatic action 28, for example at the start-up of the vehicle”) and
“wherein the processor is further configured to: detect, based on the data captured by the one or more sensors, a second trigger criterion has been satisfied during the operating session” (see at least [0049] wherein “In each case, the lighting of a part of the passenger compartment in a dynamic mode or static mode is controlled as a function of the activation or not of the autonomous driving mode.”) and
“modify the configuration of the internal lighting system to output a third lighting configuration in response to detecting the satisfaction of the second trigger criterion” (see at least [0007] wherein “A parameter from a control module may, for example, be a driving state, namely if the vehicle is in autonomous driving mode or manual driving mode, or a warning of an upcoming situation…”). The examiner interprets the first lighting configuration is that of the automatic action causing a lighting mode, the second configuration is that of the vehicle state when an autonomous driving mode is activated and the third lighting configuration is of a warning of an upcoming situation while vehicle is in autonomous driving mode.
Regarding claim 16,
Bel discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bel also teaches “wherein the one or more sensors comprises a biometric sensor, an interior or exterior ambient light sensor, a global positioning sensor, or a sensor capturing information about an environment external to the vehicle.” (see at least [0012] wherein “…the control module is configured to receive information from at least one means of image acquisition which may, in particular, be turned toward the outside of the vehicle…”).
Regarding claim 17,
Bel teaches: A method comprising: communicating, by a computing device, with a lighting system in an interior of a vehicle (see at least [0005] wherein “According to the invention, the interior lighting system for an autonomous motor vehicle comprises at least one autonomous driving module and an interior lighting luminous device comprising a plurality of luminous sub-assemblies” and [0010] wherein “each luminous sub-assembly is controlled by a control module which is configured to receive a parameter from an autonomous driving module and to define an interior lighting dynamic mode…”) and
the lighting system comprising a plurality of lighting devices that are collectively capable of outputting multiple different lighting configurations in the interior of the vehicle (see at least [0005] wherein “an interior lighting luminous device comprising a plurality of luminous sub-assemblies, each luminous sub-assembly being configured in an interior lighting static mode or in an interior lighting dynamic mode, at least one luminous assembly being configured to pass from the static mode to the dynamic mode, and vice versa”) and
while a first lighting configuration is active in the vehicle, receiving, by the computing device, an indication that a trigger criterion has been satisfied, where in the trigger criterion comprises a context of the vehicle (see at least [0056] wherein “This first selection step of the lighting mode may be implemented by an automatic action 28, for example at the start-up of the vehicle” and [0057] wherein “The dynamic lighting mode starts as soon as the first selection step is operated and the conditions for triggering are detected…”. see at least [0007] wherein “A parameter from a control module may, for example, be a driving state…” and [0064] wherein “…the control modules are configured to receive in real time, or at least with each change of state, status information 13 from the autonomous driving module indicating if the autonomous vehicle is in an autonomous or manual driving mode.”) and
sending, by the computing device, an instruction to the lighting system to cause the lighting system to change from the first lighting configuration to the second lighting configuration.” (see at least [0049], [0055-0059]. As disclosed by Bel, the audio sensor detection step operates as a function of vehicle driving mode. In the context of Bel, the audio detection step E2 may instead utilize a change in vehicle driving mode as the detection of information 32 to trigger the lighting process E3 to pass from one lighting configuration to another). (Sicconi also discloses the process for sending an instruction to change the lighting from one configuration to another (see [0062], Fig. 10)).
Bel fails to explicitly teach:
“applying, by the computing device, a model to select a second lighting configuration, different from the first lighting configuration, in response to the satisfaction of the trigger criterion”; and
“wherein the context of the vehicle comprises an activity in which a user is engaged inside the vehicle”.
However, Miloser teaches limitations of:
“applying, by the computing device, a model to select a second lighting configuration, different from the first lighting configuration, in response to the satisfaction of the trigger criterion” (See at least paragraph 31 – 32); and
“wherein the context of the vehicle comprises an activity in which a user is engaged inside the vehicle” (See at least paragraph 33 – 34).
Therefore, from the teaching of Miloser, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Bel with technique of where in the trigger criterion comprises a context of the vehicle; applying, by the computing device, a model to select a second lighting configuration, different from the first lighting configuration, in response to the satisfaction of the trigger criterion; and wherein the context of the vehicle comprises an activity in which a suer is engaged inside the vehicle as taught by Miloser in order to use behavioral models to control vehicle lighting and provide driver feedback for improved driver safety and emotion. (see at least paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 18,
The combination of Bel and Miloser teaches the method of claim 17 as discussed above. Furthermore, Miloser teaches: “wherein the model comprises a rule causing the computing device to select the second lighting configuration in response to the trigger criterion” (see at least paragraph 31 - 32).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bel (US 2018/0086259A1) and Miloser (US 2018/0118218 A1) and in further view of Boston et. al (US 2020/0346598).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Bel fails to explicitly teach: wherein the second lighting configuration output in response to the detection of the action related to the beginning or end of the operating session comprises a signature light pattern or color identifying the user or a brand associated with the vehicle.
However, Boston teaches: wherein the second lighting configuration output in response to the detection of the action related to the beginning or end of the operating session comprises a signature light pattern or color identifying the user or a brand associated with the vehicle (see at least [0013] wherein “The illustrative embodiments relate to customizable and shareable vehicle aspects that combined are referred to as vehicle personas… A persona could, for example, encompass a set of changes or factors which give the vehicle a specific character.” and [0014] wherein “These factors could be somewhat superficial, such as the lighting pattern as you approach the vehicle…These would give the vehicle a specific persona which the customer would be able to readily identify with.” and [0020] wherein “Also, in this example, the vehicle 101 includes configurable interior lighting…”).
Therefore, from the teaching of Boston, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser to utilize the method of Boston to add a signature lighting pattern associated with a user. The reason being the addition of the signature lighting pattern increases user enjoyment and would give the vehicle a specific persona which the customer would be able to readily identify with.
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach: wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a time-based criterion.
However, Boston teaches: wherein the trigger criterion comprises a time-based criterion (see at least Fig.1, [0020] wherein “Features such as lighting 107 can be preset to different strengths corresponding to times of day, ambient light levels, etc. Also, in many vehicles 101, users can change the lighting to match a theme 107 or custom set of features. For example, the user may have one set of lighting 107 for a “night out” theme and another set of lighting 107 for a “driving home from work” theme.”).
Therefore, from the teaching of Boston, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser to utilize the method of Boston to add a time-based criterion. The reason being the matching of lighting configuration to times of day or ambient light levels would enhance user enjoyment and safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bel (US 2018/0086259A1) and Miloser (US 2018/0118218 A1) and in further view of Aliakseyeu et. al (US 2019/0104593).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, Bel teaches: The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a lighting cue associated with a media content item (see at least [0047] wherein “The dynamic lighting mode is triggered automatically once music is detected”).
The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach: “the second lighting configuration is specified by a provider of the media content item”.
However, Aliakseyeu teaches: “According to one aspect disclosed herein, there is provided a method of generating a lighting effect based on metadata of an audio stream…” (see at least [0013]). Therefore, from the teaching of Aliakseyeu, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser to use the second lighting configuration is specified by a provider of the media content item in order to enhance user experience when playing content in a vehicle.
Claims 9-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bel (US 2018/0086259A1) and Miloser (US 2018/0118218 A1) and in further view of Sicconi (US 2019/0213429).
Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach: wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a measurement indicating a biometric parameter of a user of the vehicle is outside of a specified range.
However, Sicconi discloses “the driver's attention module…configured to receive extracted features reflecting the driver's biometrics; and a decision engine module…configured to receive information from the driver's attention module representing each of the extracted features of the driver, wherein a driver's attention, wellness and emotional state is determined” (see at least [0015]) and Fig.1 wherein data from biometric sensors is analyzed and classified as falling within or outside of a safe range.
PNG
media_image1.png
771
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser to use the biometric sensor data and resulting analysis from the driver’s attention module to determine a safe range for driving in order to improve the detection of the trigger criterion, as taught by Sicconi. The reason being that data provided by the biometric sensors may be used to evaluate a user as safe to operate the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach: “wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a detection that a physiological state of a user of the vehicle has transitioned from a first state to a second state.”
However, Sicconi discloses “FIG. 5 shows how the driver facing camera extracts face contours, identifying eyes, nose, mouth to evaluate yaw, pitch, roll of the face, eye gaze direction and eye lid closing patterns. A Neural Network is used to analyze the parameters and determine distraction and drowsiness conditions.” (see at least [0056]) and item 511 (see at least Fig. 5 below) which discloses the process for assessing driver physiological state.
PNG
media_image2.png
628
971
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with the technique of analyzing parameters extracted from driver facing cameras to determine if a driver is distracted , as taught by Sicconi. The reason being that the technique would improve the process for assessing if the physiological state of a driver has exceeded the threshold for safe operation of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Bel, Miloser and Sicconi teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above, but fails to teach: “wherein the second state indicates the user is fatigued, and wherein the second lighting configuration is selected to mitigate the user's fatigue”.
However, Sicconi discloses “If the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts 500 are sent to the driver immediately.” (see at least [0056] and Fig. 5) and “The main Processing Unit 1151 is in charge of…Controlling activation of a 470 nm Blue LED 1146 to assist attention stimulation of a drowsy driver” (see at least [0072] and Fig. 11 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
500
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, from the teaching of Sicconi, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with warning alerts and activation of the 470 nm blue LED as taught by Sicconi, in order to assist attention stimulation of a drowsy driver and improve driver safety. The reason being that once the system has detected a user is outside of the threshold for safe operation of the vehicle, that the lighting system could be used return the driver to a state within the permissible threshold for safe operation (see at least Sicconi [0056]).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Bel, Miloser and Sicconi teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above, but fails to explicitly teach:
“wherein the user is a driver of the vehicle, wherein detecting the physiological state of the user has transitioned from the first state to the second state comprises detecting a state of attentiveness of the user to driving the vehicle has transitioned from a first state of attentiveness to a second state of attentiveness” and
“wherein the second lighting configuration comprises a lighting alert to notify the user to refocus on driving the vehicle”
Regarding modification a.
However, Sicconi discloses “The system monitors the attention level of the driver 513 against a personalized behavior model 515 and permissible thresholds (duration, frequency, patterns) compatible 517 with driving risk computed from the driving context. If the safety margin is inadequate 519 warning alerts 500 are sent to the driver immediately.” (see at least [0056]) and “FIG. 10 shows one possible architecture for the invention. It includes…Determination that driver attention level is adequate or better, for the driving task…Determination that the driver attention level is marginal…Determination that the driver attention level is insufficient to handle the driving task” (see at least [0062] and items 1022-1024 in Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
463
657
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding modification b.
However, Sicconi discloses “FIG. 10 shows one possible architecture for the invention. It includes… Attention ok: steady green feedback light… Attention marginal: slowly blinking yellow feedback light… Attention insufficient: fast blinking red feedback light…” (see at least [0062] and items 1030-1032 in FIG. 10 above).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sicconi, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser using the technique of detecting the physiological state of the user has transitioned from the first state to the second state comprises detecting a state of attentiveness of the user to driving the vehicle has transitioned from a first state of attentiveness to a second state of attentiveness and the second lighting configuration comprises a lighting alert to notify the user to refocus on driving the vehicle as taught by Sicconi in order to use biometric sensors to determine driver attention and improve driver safety. The reason being that once the system has detected a user is outside of the threshold for safe operation of the vehicle, that the lighting system could be used return the driver to a state within the permissible threshold for safe operation (see at least [0056]).
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach: “wherein the trigger criterion further comprises a detection of an emotional state of a user of the vehicle”.
However, Sicconi discloses “…wherein a driver's attention and emotional state is determined.” and “…the provided biometric data from the biosensors to determine a driver's attention, emotional state and fatigue.” (see at least [0014], [0016] and FIG. 1 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with the technique of determining a driver’s attention and emotional state by data provided from biometric data from the biosensors as taught by Sicconi, in order to improve the determination of a driver’s emotional state and assess risks associated to moving vehicles and the driver's ability to deal with any projected risks. The reason being that data provided by the biometric sensors may be used to evaluate a user as safe to operate the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach:
“wherein the second lighting configuration comprises a short lighting sequence” and
“wherein the processor is further configured to restore the configuration of the internal lighting system to the first lighting configuration after outputting the second lighting configuration.”
Regarding modification a.
However, Sicconi discloses “The dialog interaction engine may use the blue LED light 1211 to generate brief timed blinking patterns as part of a mechanism to evaluate driver's alertness” (see at least [0073]).
Regarding modification b.
However, Sicconi discloses “In order to make sure that warnings are only given when necessary, Al is used to manage interaction with the driver” (see at least FIG. 1, [0038]) and “Attention ok: steady green feedback light…Attention marginal: slowly blinking yellow feedback light…Attention insufficient: fast blinking red feedback light” (see at least [0062]). In the context of Sicconi, these items taken together are directed to a lighting system that provides real-time lighting feedback (it should be noted that examiner interprets the Safe Zone of Fig. 1 as the default first lighting state).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sicconi, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with “wherein the second lighting configuration comprises a short lighting sequence” and “wherein the processor is further configured to restore the configuration of the internal lighting system to the first lighting configuration after outputting the second lighting configuration” as taught by Sicconi in order to use vehicle lighting to improve driver safety. The reason being that the lighting system may be used return the driver to a state within the permissible threshold for safe operation, and to make the communications with the driver as nonintrusive and effective as possible (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 19,
The combination of Bel and Miloser discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. The combination of Bel and Miloser fails to explicitly teach:
“wherein the model comprises a trained machine learning model configured to identify the second lighting configuration in response to the trigger criterion”
Sicconi furthermore teaches: “wherein the model comprises a trained machine learning model configured to identify the second lighting configuration in response to the trigger criterion” (see at least Fig. 12, [0016] wherein “the processing unit uses machine learning to dynamically evaluate risks associated…” and [0064] wherein “A Decision Engine 1020 evaluates attention 1015 vs. risk 1016…If attention is insufficient 1029 a pattern of audible and visual alerts 1032 are produced…”).
Bel, Miloser and Sicconi teach a lighting system to alert a driver and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize the need for and to apply the technique of using a machine learning module to improve the detection of a trigger criterion, as taught by Sicconi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with a trained machine learning model configured to identify the second lighting configuration in response to the trigger criterion as taught by Sicconi. The reason being that the model may be used to detect a driver that is outside of the safe threshold for operating the vehicle and that the lighting system may be used to alert the driver to return the permissible threshold for safe operation (see at least Sicconi [0056]).
Regarding claim 20,
The combination of Bel and Miloser teaches the method of claim 17 as discussed above. The combination of Bel and Miloser does not teach, but Sicconi furthermore teaches: “communicating with the lighting system comprises establishing a communication channel between the computing device and the lighting system” (see at least Fig. 12 items 1235 and 1211) and
PNG
media_image5.png
643
499
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“the communication channel including at least one of direct wired or wireless communication between the computing device and the lighting device” (see at least Fig. 11 items 1151 and 1142 and 1146), and
“wired or wireless communication through an intermediary vehicle system or wireless communication through a remote computing device” (see at least Fig. 11 items 1147, 1148 and 1151).
Therefore, from the teaching of Sicconi, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the combination of Bel and Miloser with the communicating with the lighting system comprises establishing a communication channel between the computing device and the lighting system the communication channel including at least one of direct wired or wireless communication between the computing device and the lighting device, wired or wireless communication through an intermediary vehicle system, or wireless communication through a remote computing device as taught by Sicconi in order to increase reliability of the vehicle lighting system and sensing systems. The reason being that the vehicle will be able to more reliably communicate when the driver is operating the vehicle safely.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662