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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 12/23/2025. Presently, claims 1-15 and 17-21 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 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 Final Office Action mailed February 26th, 2025. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102, Mughal fails to disclose "present[ing] [] conditioned stimuli to [a] driver before the driver performs [a] desired maneuver to suggest the desired maneuver to the driver" - as recited in amended independent claim 11 (Page 7 of Remarks).
In regards to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, the cited references fail to disclose multiple features of claim 1 (Page 10 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner notes that Mughal is not relied upon to teach or disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that Mughal discloses providing tailored feedback (e.g., critiques with improvement suggestions) to a driver concerning a maneuver the driver has just performed. In other words, Mughal provides backwards-looking feedback after a driver has performed a maneuver.
In response to the arguments above, the office relies on prior art reference of Li et al. (US 10442443 B1) (necessitated by applicant’s amendment) to teach presenting conditioned stimuli to a driver before the driver performs a desired maneuver to suggest the desired maneuver to the driver. (See 102 rejection in office action below).
Regarding point (2), the examiner notes that the cited references disclose this limitation in the instant rejection.
Applicant’s representative argues that the cited references fail to disclose (1) "assign[ing] a set of stimuli to a set of vehicle maneuvers, wherein the assigning comprises assigning first stimuli of the set of stimuli to a first vehicle maneuver of the set of vehicle maneuvers;" (2) "detect[ing] the first vehicle maneuver is being performed by a driver;" (3) "while the detected first vehicle maneuver is occurring, present[ing] the first stimuli to the driver using the HMI;" and (4) "repeat[ing] the detecting and presenting operations to create an association between [a] first vehicle maneuver and [a] first stimuli in [a] driver's mind, thus conditioning the driver to associate the first stimuli with the first vehicle maneuver."
In response to the arguments above, (1) Huang does teach assigning a set of stimuli to a set of vehicle maneuvers by using maneuver identifier signals in ¶8, (2) Mughal discloses how the system uses sensors to detect a maneuver in ¶54, (3) Mughal discloses detecting maneuvers and presenting stimuli to the driver using the HMI in ¶56, (4) conditioning the driver to associate the first stimuli to a first vehicle maneuver is intended use and this is the result of presenting stimuli to the driver for maneuvers. When the driver is consistently presented with stimuli for maneuvers, conditioning and associating will happen naturally. However, the office relies on prior art reference of Li et al. (US 10442443 B1) to disclose these limitations. (See 102 rejection in office action below).
Regarding claim 18, since they recite similar features to claims 1 and 11, they will be rejected as stated above.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the references do not disclose the suggested features of claim 1, 11, or 18 and so, all 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 17-21 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: a sensor (on-board sensors; col 4 lines 48-54);a human-machine interface ("HMI") (driver vehicle interface 180; col 5 lines 49-51); and a training circuit (suggesting driving maneuvers to train drivers; col 6 lines 30-36) communicably coupled to the sensor array (sensor measurements used for maneuvers; col 6 lines 59-61) and the HMI (control system 126 which includes sensors interacts with DVI 180; col 5 lines 49-51 and Fig 1) and configured 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 using the sensor array (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 using the HMI (if vehicle performs a dangerous maneuver, such as a dangerous lane swap, steering wheel is illuminated; col 11 lines 23-26); and repeat 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 (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).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises visual stimuli (visual cues; col 6 lines 30-36).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises visual stimuli delivered on a steering wheel (steering wheel LEDs 460; col 10 lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises tactile stimuli (haptic feedback which is tactile feedback; col 8 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises tactile stimuli delivered through a driver's seat (haptic device embedded in seat assembly; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises tactile stimuli delivered through the steering wheel (haptic device embedded in steering wheel; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses wherein the stimuli comprises tactile stimuli delivered through pedals (haptic device embedded in gas or brake pedal; col 5 lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses a system comprising: a sensor array (on-board sensors; col 4 lines 48-54); a human-machine interface ("HMI") (driver vehicle interface or DVI 180; col 5 lines 49-51); and a suggestion circuit (driving suggestions through stimuli; col 6 lines 30-36) communicably coupled to the sensor array and the HMI (control system 126 which includes sensors interacts with DVI 180; col 5 lines 49-51 and Fig 1) and configured to: detect a driving scenario using the sensor array (for example, system can detect if vehicle is backing up too fast; col 10 lines 21-23); identify a desired maneuver corresponding to the detected driving scenario (determining a maneuver from sensor measurements; col 6 lines 53-61); receive an indication of stimuli (receiving driving stimuli as suggestions; col 11 lines 52-56) that a driver has been conditioned to associate with the desired maneuver (intended use); and present the conditioned stimuli to the driver using the HMI (communicating stimuli as notifications using the DVI; col 8 lines 19-24) before the driver performs the desired maneuver to suggest the desired maneuver to the driver (the notification is for the first driver maneuver suggested to the driver which comes before the second driver maneuver, actual input from the driver; col 9 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses wherein the 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 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 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 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 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 11 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 (intended use); detecting a current driving scenario for an area in which the driver is operating the vehicle (determining a maneuver from sensor measurements; col 6 lines 53-61); identifying the first vehicle maneuver is warranted by the current driving scenario for the area in which the driver is operating the vehicle (determining the first driving maneuver from the current scenario based on sensor measurements and is warranted because it was determined from sensor measurements in the car; col 6 lines 59-62); and presenting the conditioned first stimuli to the driver before the driver performs the first vehicle maneuver to suggest the first vehicle maneuver to the driver (the notification is for the first driver maneuver suggested to the driver which comes before the second driver maneuver, actual input from the driver; col 9 lines 1-15).
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).
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses wherein the training circuit is further configured to: detect a current driving scenario for an area in which the driver is operating the vehicle (determining the first driving maneuver from the current scenario based on sensor measurements; col 6 lines 59-62); identify the first vehicle maneuver is warranted by the current driving scenario for the area in which the driver is operating the vehicle (determining the first driving maneuver from the current scenario based on sensor measurements and is warranted because it was determined from sensor measurements in the car; col 6 lines 59-62); and present the conditioned first stimuli to suggest the first vehicle maneuver to the driver (the notification is for the first driver maneuver suggested to the driver which comes before the second driver maneuver, actual input from the driver; col 9 lines 1-15).
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 stimuli comprises visual stimuli 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 stimuli comprises visual stimuli 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 stimuli comprises visual stimuli 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. It teaches wherein the stimuli comprises visual stimuli 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
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-Fri 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