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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 17, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on August 27, 2025. Claims 1-16, 18-19 & 21 are currently pending. Claims 17 & 20 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application KR10-2021-0102022, Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0102022, filed on August 3, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on August 27, 2025 are acknowledged. The amendments filed on August 27, 2025 overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, the amendments now have a new 35 USC 112(a) rejection. In view of the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the prior art rejections are not overcome by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 7, filed August 27, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13, 18-19, & 21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended claims, the combination of the new 35 USC 112(a) and 35 112(b) rejections below result in no significant changes of the claims with respect to the prior art of record. Therefore, the examiner maintains the prior art rejection of record.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16, 18-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 19 recite several amendments related to …mechanical components… Page 8 of applicant’s arguments references [0097], [0132], & [0135] for amended content. Upon thorough examination of the specification, it is found the specification does not specifically reference mechanical components being used in the invention of the instant application. For these reasons, the examiner believes the amended limitations related to …mechanical components… to be new matter.
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 1-16, 18-19, & 21 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.
As shown above, amended Claims 1 & 19 contain references to …mechanical components… In addition to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, it is uncertain what …control values of mechanical components… means in this claim. For example, mechanical components that are entirely mechanical in nature would not have control values as there is not a controller involved in the function of the component. As an alternate interpretation, if the components are mechanical components that also have a controller and are therefore not solely mechanical. For examination on the merits, the examiner with interpret the amendments as mechanical components that have some sort of controller involvement in order to accept control values. Under this interpretation, …mechanical components… will be interpreted broadly to accept any component with both a mechanical and electrical and/or software function.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13, 18-19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2020/0391760, to Reschke et al. (previously of record) in view of US 20140135598 A1, to Weidl et al. (hereafter Weidl). (previously of record)
Regarding Claim 1, Reschke discloses A method of providing a mobility sharing service, the method comprising: generating initial control information of a mobility based at least in part on an identified user (Reschke [0021], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses a driver being sensed by an eye tracker with respect to driving a vehicle);
determining driving environment information (Reschke [0020], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses using environment sensors to sense environment around the vehicles such as traffic);
determining one or more context based at least in part on the driving environment information (Reschke [0020], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses Reschke discloses using environment sensors to sense environment around the vehicles such as traffic (i.e. context));
generating a driving environment change event by comparing control values of mechanical components controlled by at least one or more of the mobility, or the identified user, wherein one or more components correspond to one or more context (Reschke [0025], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses using the headlights (i.e. control values), which would contain both a mechanical and electrical component, of a car to illuminate objects (i.e. driving environment change event) not seen by the driver. Headlights being required to illuminate objects);
generating control information of the mobility based on the driving environment change event (Reschke [0025], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses using the headlights of a car to illuminate objects not seen by the driver); and
controlling the mobility based at least in part on the control information (Reschke [0025], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses using the headlights of a car to illuminate objects not seen by the driver);
However, Reschke does not specifically disclose wherein generating the driving environment change event includes: checking a first control value corresponding to a first context; checking a second control value corresponding to a second context; determining the first control value with the second control value; and generating the driving environment change event based at least in part on the determining the first control value with the second control value.
Weidl, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein generating the driving environment change event includes: checking a first control value of the mechanical components corresponding to a first context determined based on the environment information (Weidl [0029]-[0030], Examiner Note: Weidl teaches an environmental parameter sensor which is used to measure change of environmental data (i.e. environment information) over time. This includes measuring a first vital parameter related to the environment); checking a second control value of the mechanical components corresponding to a second context determined based on the environment information (Weidl [0029]-[0030], Examiner Note: Weidl teaches an environmental parameter sensor which is used to measure change of environmental data over time. This includes measuring a second vital parameter related to the environment); comparing the first control value with the second control value (Weidl [0029]-[0030], Examiner Note: Weidl teaches comparing the two collected vital parameters); and generating the driving environment change event based at least in part as a result of comparing on the first control value with the second control value (Weidl [0080], Examiner Note: After a comparison is made, an action is made with respect to the environment “This consolidated environmentally detected data is analyzed with cognitive methods in order to evaluate the corresponding development of the traffic situation, including the behavior of the other road users, and to recognize and try to prevent possible risks depending on the vital state”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method of assisting a driver in a traffic situation of Reschke with the capability to compare environmental data and make an action based on that data of Weidl in order to provide a safer experience for the passenger with respect to the environmental factors.
Regarding Claim 2, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring user information of the identified user; and generating a user information change event based at least in part on the user information (Reschke [0023], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses monitoring the driver’s eyes and determining whether the driver is seeing every relevant object).
Regarding Claim 3, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 2, wherein generating the control information of the mobility comprises generating the control information of the mobility based at least in part the driving environment change event or the user information change event (Reschke [0025], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses notifying the driver about an undetected object so it can be avoided).
Regarding Claim 4, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 2, further comprising checking a context control mode (Reschke [0047]-[0049], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses determining whether an action needs to be taken in accordance with information collected from the driver or the environment)
Regarding Claim 5, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the context control mode comprises a driving environment priority mode in which a control is performed by preferentially considering the driving environment information or a user information priority mode in which control is performed by preferentially considering the user information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses determining whether a control is performed based on the environment (e.g. making a list of objects in the environment undetected by the driver) or the driver (e.g. illuminating undetected objects with headlights due to the driver not seeing them).
Regarding Claim 6, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 5, wherein determining the driving environment information is performed based at least in part on determining that the context control mode is the driving environment priority mode (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses checking if there are undetected objects in the environment).
Regarding Claim 7, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the control information of the mobility is generated based at least in part on the driving environment change event being generated based on the driving environment information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses making a list of undetected objects in the environment).
Regarding Claim 8, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 7, wherein monitoring the user information is performed based at least in part on the driving environment change event not being generated based on the driving environment information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses “If there are no relevant, undetected objects, the second object list is thus empty; therefore no further measures are required”, if no list is made, then no change event is performed based on the environment).
Regarding Claim 9, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 8, wherein the control information of the mobility is generated based at least in part on the user information change event being generated based on the user information (Reschke [0047]-[0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses if there is no change event based on environmental information, then the process would repeat by first sensing the driver’s eyes (i.e. user information) and illuminating the headlights if there are undetected objects in further cycles of the process).
Regarding Claim 10, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 5, wherein monitoring the user information is preferentially performed based in at least in part on determining that the context control mode is the user information priority mode (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses illuminating undetected objects based on the driver’s visual data).
Regarding Claim 11, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the control information of the mobility is generated based at least in part on the user information change event being generated based on the user information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses illuminating undetected objects based on the driver’s visual data).
Regarding Claim 12, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 11, wherein determining the driving environment information is performed based at least in part on the user information change event not being generated based on the user information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses if there is high risk of collision (i.e. no action being taken part based on the driver information) a warning measure can be taken to inform other road users (i.e. an action based on environment information)).
Regarding Claim 13, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 12, wherein the control information of the mobility is generated based at least in part on the driving environment change event being generated based on the driving environment information (Reschke [0050], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses a warning measure can be taken to inform other road users (i.e. an action based on environment information)).
Regarding Claim 18, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the driving environment information comprises road surface type information, road surface state information, longitudinal linear information, transverse linear information, mobility distance, autonomous driving environment information, driving time zone information, a road congestion level, or size information of a road (Reschke [0018], Examiner Note: “Objects in the first object list can be, for example, traffic signs, pedestrians, obstacles, other road users, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1 aside from those listed below. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Reschke further discloses a communication unit (Reschke [0044], Reschke discloses “At this point, it should also be pointed out that a communication device, in particular for motor vehicle-to-motor vehicle or motor vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, can also be regarded as an environment sensor if it provides sensor data and/or environment information that can be understood as sensor data); a storage medium; a processor (Reschke [0057], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses a control device 17 which would contain a processor and memory)…
Regarding Claim 21, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling the mobility based on control information (Reschke [0025], Examiner Note: Reschke discloses using the headlights (i.e. control values) of a car to illuminate objects (i.e. driving environment change event) not seen by the driver).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2020/0391760, to Reschke et al. (previously of record) in view of US 20140135598 A1, to Weidl et al. (previously of record) as applied to claim 1 & 18 above, and further in view of JP 201435078 A, to Nakamura. (previously of record)
Regarding Claim 14, as shown above, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 2,
However, Reschke does not specifically disclose wherein generating the user information change event comprises: generating the user information change event based at least in part on a comparing the first control value with the second control value.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein generating the user information change event comprises generating the user information change event based at least in part on a comparing the first control value with the second control value (Nakamura, Examiner Note: “In step S16, it is determined the data received from the pulse meter 10 is high "very fast" degree of fatigue of the driver“, Steps S12-S16 are performed when the pulse rate is fast. The navigation device then sets an alternate route which is based on the high pulse of the driver ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method of assisting a driver in a traffic situation of Reschke in view of Weidl with the driver fatigue detection and re-routing method of Nakamura in order to more safely deliver a user of a vehicle experiencing a fatigue-based health episode.
Regarding Claim 15, as shown above, Reschke in view of Weidl teaches The method of claim 2,
However, Reschke does not disclose wherein monitoring the user information comprises: checking an initial fatigue degree when the identified user starts driving; and checking a subsequent driving fatigue degree while the mobility is driven.
Nakamura teaches wherein monitoring the user information comprises: checking an initial fatigue degree when the identified user starts driving (Nakamura, Examiner Note: “The acquired pulse data is recorded in the memory 13. In step S6, if the pulse of the acquired pulse data is compared with the normal pulse data of the driver, "normal", "fast", "very fast", and determines which one of the 3 stages of to. Normal pulse data driver is assumed to have been recorded as a normal value in the memory 13 in advance by measurement”); and checking a subsequent driving fatigue degree while the mobility is driven (Nakamura, Examiner Note: “In step S5, periodically I get the pulse data from the sensor 12. The acquired pulse data is recorded in the memory 13”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method of assisting a driver in a traffic situation of Reschke in view of Weidl with the driver fatigue detection and re-routing method of Nakamura in order to more safely deliver a user of a vehicle experiencing a fatigue-based health episode.
Regarding Claim 16, as shown above, Reschke in view of Weidl and further in view of Nakamura teaches The method of claim 15,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein monitoring the user information comprises checking a change value between the initial fatigue degree and the subsequent driving fatigue degree or checking a change value between the subsequent driving fatigue degree and another subsequent driving fatigue degree.
Nakamura further teaches wherein monitoring the user information comprises checking a change value between the initial fatigue degree and the subsequent driving fatigue degree or checking a change value between the subsequent driving fatigue degree and another subsequent driving fatigue degree (Nakamura, Examiner Note: “In step S6, if the pulse of the acquired pulse data is compared with the normal pulse data of the driver, "normal", "fast", "very fast", and determines which one of the 3 stages of to. Normal pulse data driver is assumed to have been recorded as a normal value in the memory 13 in advance by measurement”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method of assisting a driver in a traffic situation of Reschke in view of Weidl with the driver fatigue detection and re-routing method of Nakamura in order to more safely deliver a user of a vehicle experiencing a fatigue-based health episode.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL TYLER EVAN DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666