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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 06/11/2026. Presently, claims 1-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/29/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-20 is maintained as presented below.
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102, applicant asserts the following: “Li fails to disclose a two-phase framework for driver training that involves: (1) repeatedly presenting a stimulus to a driver while a driver is performing a particular driving maneuver to condition the driver to associate the stimulus with the particular driving maneuver; and (2) then presenting the conditioned stimulus to the driver to suggest that the driver perform the particular driving maneuver in the immediate future. In other words, Li fails to disclose the combination of a conditioning phase and a suggestion phase - as recited amended independent claim 1.” (Page 8 of Remarks)
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the arguments above, Li does repeatedly present stimulus to the driver while the driver is performing a particular maneuver (col 10 lines 2-26 of Li). It seems like applicant is heavily relying on the limitation of a “conditioning phase” for the driver. However, the conditioning of the driver is a result of presenting the stimulus to the user because the mind of the user will naturally associate the stimulus with a particular driving maneuver after enough repetition was provided. (See 102 rejection below).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, since they recite similar features to claim 1, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the prior art does not disclose or suggest the suggested features of claim 1, 11, or 18 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 10442443 B1; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory memory storing machine-readable instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors (computer program in col 3 lines 13-26 with processors in col 5 lines 35-48), cause the system to: assign a set of stimuli to a set of vehicle maneuvers (the driving suggestions here act as a set of maneuvers and communicating them through haptic, audio, and visual cues act as a set of stimuli; col 6 lines 30-36), wherein the assigning comprises assigning first stimuli of the set of stimuli to a first vehicle maneuver of the set of vehicle maneuvers (for example steering wheel illuminated on the left side is a stimuli when the vehicle is being driven too close to the left lane markers, which suggest driver to move to the right; col 10 lines 2-12); detect the first vehicle maneuver is being performed by a driver of a vehicle (for example, system can detect if vehicle is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-23); while the detected first vehicle maneuver is occurring, present the first stimuli to the driver (if vehicle performs a dangerous maneuver, such as a dangerous lane swap, steering wheel is illuminated; col 10 lines 23-26); repeat the detecting and presenting operations (this is done with multiple scenarios as mentioned in examples from col 10 lines 21-44) to create an association between the first vehicle maneuver and the first stimuli in the driver's mind (this limitation is an intended use and thus since Li discloses using stimuli for suggesting maneuvers, it would result in the same association as applicant is claiming here), thus conditioning the driver to associate the first stimuli with the first vehicle maneuver (this limitation is an intended use and thus since Li discloses using stimuli for suggesting maneuvers, it would result in the same association as applicant is claiming here); and upon identifying that the first vehicle maneuver is warranted by a current driving scenario (for example, the system identifies that vehicle 120 is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-26) while the driver is operating the vehicle, present the conditioned first stimuli to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver to the driver (then a bottom portion of the steering wheel will get illuminated; col 10 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the first stimuli comprises visual stimuli (visual cues; col 6 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a steering wheel (steering wheel LEDs 460; col 10 lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses wherein the first stimuli comprises first tactile stimuli (haptic feedback which is tactile feedback; col 8 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses wherein the first tactile stimuli is delivered through a driver's seat (haptic device embedded in seat assembly; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses wherein the first tactile stimuli is delivered through a steering wheel (haptic device embedded in steering wheel; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses wherein the first tactile stimuli is delivered through pedals (haptic device embedded in gas or brake pedal; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory memory storing machine-readable instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors (computer program in col 3 lines 13-26 with processors in col 5 lines 35-48), cause the system to: detect a vehicle maneuver is being performed by a driver of a vehicle (for example, system can detect if vehicle is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-23); while the detected vehicle maneuver is occurring, present a stimuli to the driver (bottom portion of steering wheel is illuminated; col 10 lines 23-26); repeat the detecting and presenting operations (this is done with multiple scenarios as mentioned in examples from col 10 lines 21-44) to create an association between the vehicle maneuver and the stimuli in the driver's mind (this limitation is an intended use and thus since Li discloses using stimuli for suggesting maneuvers, it would result in the same association as applicant is claiming here), thus conditioning the driver to associate the stimuli with the vehicle maneuver (this limitation is an intended use and thus since Li discloses using stimuli for suggesting maneuvers, it would result in the same association as applicant is claiming here); and upon identifying that the first vehicle maneuver is warranted by a current driving scenario while the driver is operating the vehicle (for example, the system identifies that vehicle 120 is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-26), present the conditioned stimuli to the driver (communicating stimuli as notifications using the DVI; col 8 lines 19-24) to suggest the vehicle maneuver to the driver (then a bottom portion of the steering wheel will get illuminated; col 10 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses wherein the current driving scenario is a scenario warranting a communication action (changing lanes requires a communication action with another driver because you need to show your turn signals; col 10 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses wherein the current driving scenario is a scenario warranting a longitudinal control action (this is done through braking or accelerating, which uses gas pedal and brakes needed to drive; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses wherein the current driving scenario is a scenario warranting a lateral control action (changing lanes is changing position or orientation, which is needed to drive; col 10 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses wherein the current driving scenario is a scenario risk scenario (hazardous situations, such as a dangerous lane change; col 10 lines 31-26).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses wherein the current driving scenario is a navigation scenario (the use of GPS because you will need to follow navigation instructions; col 4 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses a method comprising: assigning a set of stimuli to a set of vehicle maneuvers (the driving suggestions here act as a set of maneuvers and communicating them through haptic, audio, and visual cues act as a set of stimuli; col 6 lines 30-36), wherein the assigning comprises assigning first stimuli of the set of stimuli to a first vehicle maneuver of the set of vehicle maneuvers (for example steering wheel illuminated on the left side is a stimuli when the vehicle is being driven too close to the left lane markers, which suggest driver to move to the right; col 10 lines 2-12); detecting initiation of the first vehicle maneuver by a driver in a vehicle (for example, system can detect if vehicle is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-23); presenting the first stimuli assigned to the first vehicle maneuver while the driver continues to perform the first vehicle maneuver (for example, if vehicle performs a dangerous maneuver, such as a dangerous lane swap, steering wheel is illuminated; col 10 lines 23-26); repeating the detecting and presenting operations (this is done with multiple scenarios as mentioned in examples from col 10 lines 21-34) to create an association between the first vehicle maneuver and the first stimuli in the driver's mind, thus conditioning the driver to associate the first stimuli with the first vehicle maneuver (this limitation is an intended use and thus since Li discloses using stimuli for suggesting maneuvers, it would result in the same association as applicant is claiming here); and upon identifying that the first vehicle maneuver is warranted by a current driving scenario while the driver is operating the vehicle (for example, the system identifies that vehicle 120 is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-26), presenting the conditioned first stimuli to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver to the driver (then a bottom portion of the steering wheel will get illuminated; col 10 lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses detecting that the driver performed the first vehicle maneuver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (comparing both the first vehicle maneuver from the suggestion and the second vehicle maneuver from the input of the driver to see if they match or not; col 7 lines 7-15); recording that the driver performed the first vehicle maneuver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (system updates the driving data, which means the data is recorded and stored in col 12 lines 1-3 and these data includes all the data from sensors and maneuvers as shown in Fig 1 from Data recording and learning 255); and storing data related to the vehicle's surroundings when the driver performed the first vehicle maneuver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (system updates the driving data, which means the data is recorded and stored in col 12 lines 1-3 and these data includes all the data from sensors and maneuvers as shown in Fig 1 from Data recording and learning 255).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses detecting that the driver did not perform the first vehicle maneuver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (comparing both the first vehicle maneuver from the suggestion and the second vehicle maneuver from the input of the driver to see if they match or not; col 7 lines 7-15); recording the fact that the driver did not perform the first vehicle maneuver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (system updates the driving data, which means the data is recorded and stored in col 12 lines 1-3 and these data includes all the data from sensors and maneuvers as shown in Fig 1 from Data recording and learning 255); and storing data related to the vehicle's surroundings and any vehicle maneuvers performed by the driver after the conditioned first stimuli was presented to the driver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver (system updates the driving data, which means the data is recorded and stored in col 12 lines 1-3 and these data includes all the data from sensors and maneuvers as shown in Fig 1 from Data recording and learning 255).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mughal et al. (US 20160298971 A1; hereinafter Mughal).
Regarding claim 3, Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a HUD.
However, Mughal focuses on a driving aid system with feedback which relates to Li because they both focus on helping the driver improve their driving. Mughal teaches wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a HUD (the display can be a HUD; 0030).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to implement the teachings of Mughal for the benefit of providing the driver with another way to provide visual stimuli. A HUD improves safety and convenience by projecting data directly into the windshield, which is in the line of sight of the driver, that way the driver can keep their eyes on the road without many distractions.
Regarding claim 4, Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a dashboard.
However, Mughal focuses on a driving aid system with feedback which relates to Li because they both focus on helping the driver improve their driving. Mughal teaches wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a dashboard (driver information center display; 0030).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to implement the teachings of Mughal for the benefit of providing the driver with another way to provide visual stimuli. A dashboard allows important data to be provided slightly below the line of sight of the driver, which allows the driver to keep their eyes on the road without many distractions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ito et al. (US 20060022808 A1; hereinafter Ito).
Regarding claim 5, Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a-pillars.
However, Ito focuses on a system to adjusting a drive sense of the driver through visual stimulus, which relates to Li because they both present visual stimulus to the driver to help them. Ito teaches wherein the first visual stimuli is delivered on a-pillars (visual stimulus on front pillar portion; ¶64).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to implement the teachings of Ito for the benefit of providing the driver with another way to provide visual stimuli. A-pillars allows important data to be provided near the line of sight of the driver, which allows the driver to keep their eyes on the road without many distractions.
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights