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 .
Response to Amendment
The 12/12/2025 amendments are entered. Claims 5, 15, and 21-24 are amended. Claims 13 and 16 are canceled. Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-24 are pending.
The Claim Objections
The objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
The § 112 Rejections
The rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the art as described below. To reflect the change of grounds, this is a Non-Final Action.
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 1, 9, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen (US 20170153636 B1) in view of Knight (US 20110054730 A1) and Ishii (US 20140280177 A1), further in view of Bolourchi (US 20090091435 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boesen teaches a system comprising:
a wireless headset (Boesen [0085]: “One or more wearable devices 10 such as a set of earpieces including a left earpiece 12A and a right earpiece 12B may be in operative communication with the vehicle control system 40 via the communications system 48. . . . the communications system 48 may provide a Bluetooth or BLE link directly to the wearable devices . . . ”) including a speaker (Boesen FIG. 3: Speakers 73.) and a microphone (Boesen [0087]: “Each earpiece 12A, 12B may also include one or more microphones 70A, 70B. It is to be understood that any number of microphones may be present . . ..”); and
control circuitry (Boesen [0084]: “The vehicle 2 may have a vehicle control system 40.”) disposed in a commercial vehicle (Boesen [0084]: “As shown in FIG. 1 there is a vehicle 2. Although the vehicle shown is a full-size sedan, it is contemplated that the vehicle may be . . . commercial vehicles”).
Boesen does not appear to expressly teach the commercial vehicle including a tractor configured for towing a trailer.
However, Knight teaches the commercial vehicle including a tractor configured for towing a trailer (Knight [0061]: “Referring now to FIG. 2, there is illustrated a commercial vehicle, i.e. a tractor-trailer . . . ”).
In light of Knight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the present invention that the commercial vehicle referred to by Boesen includes a tractor configured for towing a trailer.
Boesen in light of Knight further teaches the control circuitry in communication with a plurality of vehicle systems (Boesen [0084]: “The vehicle control system 40 is a system which may include any number of mechanical and electromechanical subsystems.”), the control circuitry configured to:
provide alerts through the speaker to a driver of the commercial vehicle that is wearing the wireless headset (Boesen [0110]: “ The wearable device 10 may include left earpiece 12A and right earpiece 12B, and the data communicated to or from the wireless transceiver module 110 may include instructions, commands, or audio streams.”; [0114]: “In addition, based on vehicle state, an additional audio stream may be communicated to the wearable device 10. The additional audio stream may include the playing an audio message associated with a vehicle function, alert condition, or other function or condition.” Boesen also teaches providing alerts based on health information of the driver.).
While Boesen teaches that a vehicle state or function may cause an audio alert to be presented to the driver, the reference does not appear to expressly teach the control circuitry is configured to provide an audio alert based on information from the plurality of vehicle systems indicating occurrence of trigger events; and
determine when to provide each alert based on a priority level of the alert within a multi-level hierarchy of priority levels.
However, Ishii teaches control circuitry configured to provide an audio alert based on information from the plurality of vehicle systems (Ishii [0024]: “ . . . the controller 30 obtains a peripheral condition of the vehicle from the information sent from the on-board sensor 11, the human sensor 12, the position sensor 13, the camera 14, and the map database 15.”) indicating occurrence of trigger events; and
determine when to provide each alert based on a priority level of the alert within a multi-level hierarchy of priority levels (Ishii FIG. 2: Application database assigns priorities to various applications, each using data from various vehicle sensors and each able to provide audio related to the application. Those applications depicted as able to provide an alarm taken as applications able to provide an alert. Ishii [0031]: “The priority item indicates a priority value of the application. The executer 33 executes the application with a higher priority value in priority to the application with a lower priority value.” See for example at least [0034]-[0035] and [0038]-[0039] which teach how various prioritized applications provide audio warnings.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the vehicle comprising a wireless headset capable of providing audio alerts and control circuitry in communication with a plurality of vehicle systems taught by the above combination of Boesen and Knight with the application execution prioritization system and plurality of vehicle systems (i.e., internal and external cameras, position sensors, map databases, human sensors, and so forth) to provide prioritized vehicle alerts using those applications taught by Ishii. Doing so would have allowed the system to use hardware resources more effectively, improving processing speed and efficiency as suggested by [0010] of Ishii.
The above combination Boesen, Knight, and Ishii further teaches wherein the plurality of vehicle systems includes a camera monitor system (Ishii [0020]: “ . . . the camera 14 includes a front camera for capturing an image of an area ahead of the vehicle and a peripheral camera for capturing an image of an area around the vehicle.”), and at least one of the alerts describes a status of the driver (Ishii [0039]: “As the result of the execution of the driver monitor application (10), when it is determined that the driver feels drowsiness, an alarm is outputted to the meter display 51B and the speaker 52.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that audio alerts would have been provided through the wireless headset of Boesen.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the alert describing the status of the driver is provided based on information from the camera monitor system.
However, Bolourchi teaches the alert describing the status of the driver is provided based on information from the camera monitor system (Bolourchi [0019]: “The vehicle 1 can further include on onboard camera system 22 for reading lane markers such as lane markers 2, 2a as described in accordance with exemplary embodiments herein. ”; [0028]: “Referring till to FIG. 1, a lane violation V, can be detected by the camera system 22 by detection of one of the lane markers 2.”; [0029]-[0030]: Severity of the lane violation S also determined by the onboard camera system.; FIG. 2: Steps 240, 245 teach Drowsiness D (sum V*S, see [0031]) reaching a threshold, activating warning signals. [0033]: “In exemplary embodiments, given an excess of the drowsiness index, D, the onboard warning system 15 can be activated as discussed above, with increasing, warning as the severity of the lane violation increases. . . . Similarly, the frequency and amplitude of the audible warning signals can change and increase for increased severity of the lane violation.” Drowsiness index taken as driver status. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the audio alert of Bolourchi would have been played over the headset of Takahashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that audio alerts would have been provided through the wireless headset of Boesen.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that provides audio alerts relating to driver drowsiness based on internal camera views of the driver through a wireless headset taught by the above combination of Boesen, Knight, and Ishii with the system that provides audio alerts relating to driver drowsiness based on external camera views of lane markings taught by Bolourchi. Doing so would have improved the accuracy and reliability of the drowsiness determination by providing more sensors by which drowsiness may be detected.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, applied to a method.
Regarding claim 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the above combination of Boesen, Knight, Ishii, and Bolourchi further teaches wherein at least one of the alerts describes the status of the driver and is provided based on information from a driver monitoring camera (Ishii [0039]: “The driver monitor application (10) is executed based on output data of the in-vehicle camera and the image recognition device in order to monitor whether the driver is dozing off. As the result of the execution of the driver monitor application (10), when it is determined that the driver feels drowsiness, an alarm is outputted to the meter display 51B and the speaker 52.”).
Claim 23 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 21, applied to a method.
Regarding claim 22, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the above combination of Boesen, Knight, Ishii, and Bolourchi further teaches wherein at least one of the alerts describes the status of the driver and is provided based on information from a motion sensor of the wireless headset (Boesen [0137]: “Where the wearable device is an earpiece, the inertial sensors may be used to track head movement of the driver. If the head movement of the driver indicates that the user is falling asleep, such as downward movement of the chin and then snapping back of the head as the user catches themselves falling asleep, or other movements associated with a user falling asleep, then the earpiece may communicate a message to the vehicle. Upon receipt of the message, the vehicle may take any number of relevant actions. . . . This may include . . . providing one or more audio warnings . . ..”).
Claim 24 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 22, applied to a method.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen (US 20170153636 B1) in view of Knight (US 20110054730 A1), Ishii (US 20140280177 A1), and Bolourchi (US 20090091435 A1), further in view of Basir (WO 2009073962 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the above combination of prior art teaches the system of claim 1.
The above combination of prior art does not appear to expressly teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine when to provide each alert further based on whether the wireless headset is engaged in a communication session when the alert is triggered.
However, Basir teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine when to provide each alert further based on whether the wireless headset is engaged in a communication session when the alert is triggered ([Basir 0085]: “Prioritization allows spoken direction information to momentarily interrupt certain emails or phone calls if desired, or wait until other calls are complete.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the alert prioritization system of the above combination of prior art with the module allowing for prioritization of navigation alerts alongside phone calls taught by Basir. Doing so would have made the information “customizable to meet driver preferences, such as not interrupting important phone calls or emails, or interrupting only if a turn was missed” as taught in Basir Par. 0085.
Regarding claim 3, the above combination of prior art teaches the system of claim 2.
This combination further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
interrupt the communication session to provide a particular alert based on the particular alert corresponding to a first priority level of the multi-level hierarchy ([Basir 0085]: “Prioritization is customizable to meet driver preferences… interrupting only if a turn was missed.” APOSITA would have understood before the date of invention that the preferences set by the user in Basir would have been placed on the scale of priority of Ishii in the above combination, taken as a first priority level.); and
postpone providing the particular alert until after the communication session is complete based on the particular alert corresponding to a second priority level that is below the first priority level in the multi-level hierarchy ([Basir 0085]: “Prioritization allows spoken direction information to… wait until other calls are complete.”).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 as applied to the method.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 as applied to the method.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen (US 20170153636 B1) in view of Knight (US 20110054730 A1), Ishii (US 20140280177 A1), Bolourchi (US 20090091435 A1), and Basir (WO 2009073962 A1), further in view of Dragicevic (US 20190122125 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the above combination of prior art teaches the method of claim 11, wherein:
the control circuitry includes a first electronic control unit (ECU) that is part of the wireless headset (Boesen FIG. 3: Intelligent Control System 30.) and also includes a second ECU that is separate from the wireless headset and is configured to communicate with at least one of the plurality of vehicle systems over a vehicle communication bus (Boesen [0109]: “The wearable device 10 communicates user data to a wireless transceiver associated with an electronic module 110 of a vehicle. The user data may include biometric data, user setting data, stored data, inertial sensor data, physiological sensor data, music preference data, or other types of data. Such data may be translated into vehicle user settings and communicated to the appropriate modules over the, vehicle network 100. ”).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the first ECU performs the determining steps, interrupting step, and postponing step.
However, Dragicevic teaches the first ECU performs the determining steps, interrupting step, and postponing step ([Dragicevic Fig. 2]: Processor 30 performs alert prioritization via waiting and postponing notifications (See Pars. 0068 and 0071) and is housed in the earpiece 10.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the alert prioritization system with a headset that receives the alerts from the vehicle ECU with the earpiece/headset that performs alert prioritizations and presents alerts to the user using a processor onboard the earpiece/headset taught by Dragicevic. Doing so would have reduced the processing load on the vehicle ECU by allowing the earpiece to perform the alert prioritization and presentation tasks instead.
This combination further teaches the first ECU performs the determining steps, interrupting step, and postponing step (APOSITA would have recognized given the above combination that the actions performed based on the prioritization taught in for example Basir would have been performed at the ear piece to reduce processing load.).
Claims 4-6, 8, 14-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen (US 20170153636 B1) in view of Knight (US 20110054730 A1), Ishii (US 20140280177 A1), and Bolourchi (US 20090091435 A1), further in view of Nista (US 20210125426 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of prior art teaches the system of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the plurality of vehicle systems includes an electronic logging device system; and
at least one of the alerts is provided based on information from the electronic logging device system.
However, Nista teaches wherein the plurality of vehicle systems includes an electronic logging device system ([Nista 0002]: “This application relates to electronic logging, and more particularly to an electronic logging system for vehicles.”); and
at least one of the alerts is provided based on information from the electronic logging device system ([Nista 0045]: “A sound-emitting device 62 (e.g., a speaker or buzzer) is configured to provide audio alerts, such as, e.g., an alarm to indicate that a speed of the vehicle 20 exceeds a maximum permitted speed threshold and/or to indicate the driver 12 has exceeded a maximum permitted driving time during a particular time period.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the priority alert system that provides audio alerts to the driver of the above combination of prior art with the system that can measure the amount of time the driver has been driving during a time period and alerting the driver via audio when a maximum time is exceeded taught by Nista. Doing so would have increased the safety of the system by providing the driver a warning when they have been driving long enough for fatigue to affect their driving ability.
Regarding claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the above combination of Boesen, Knight, Ishii, Bolourchi, and Nista teaches the system of claim 4.
While Ishii in the above combination teaches an interior camera that monitors the driver’s drowsiness, the combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
obtain driver attentiveness data from a cabin driver monitoring system, or from the wireless headset that is indicative of a level of attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle;
compare the driver attentiveness data from the cabin driver monitoring system to predefined criteria for a non-attentive driving trigger event; and
provide said at least one of the alerts based on the driver-attentiveness data from the cabin driver monitoring system meeting the predefined criteria.
However, Bolourchi further teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to:
obtain driver attentiveness data from a cabin driver monitoring system, or from the wireless headset that is indicative of a level of attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle (Bolourchi [0022]: “The driver attention-monitoring device informs the lane departure warning and LK system that the driver is at some level of drowsiness/inattentiveness. The driver attention monitoring device includes, but is not limited to a camera system with infrared flood (or equivalent apparatus) to monitor the status of the operator, in particular, an operator's eyes.”);
compare the driver attentiveness data from the cabin driver monitoring system to predefined criteria for a non-attentive driving trigger event (Bolourchi [0022]: “For example, the driver attention-monitoring device may be employed as an indicator when the driver has taken their eyes off the roadway for a duration exceeding a selected time.”); and
provide said at least one of the alerts based on the driver-attentiveness data from the cabin driver monitoring system meeting the predefined criteria (Bolourchi [0023]: “When the driver attention-monitoring device ascertains that a driver is inattentive, the lane departure warning and LK system can respond with torque nudges, if the driver's hands are on the handwheel 8 (e.g., a helper (Assist) mode). In addition, audible (raising and lowering of the radio may be part of this feature) and visual warnings may be activated along with steering wheel buzz (as described herein).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have further combined the system that monitors the driver using interior cameras and provides alerts when it is detected the driver is drowsy taught by the above combination of Boesen, Knight, Ishii, Bolourchi, and Nista with the driver attention-monitoring device of Bolourchi that uses interior camera images of the driver to determine driver attentiveness and provides audio alerts also taught by Bolourchi. Doing so would have improved driver safety by allowing the system to monitor another driver factor that could result in an accident.
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of prior art further teaches the system of claim 4,
wherein:
the plurality of vehicle systems includes an electronic logging device system ([Nista 0002]: “This application relates to electronic logging, and more particularly to an electronic logging system for vehicles.”) which includes an electronic logging device configured to record drive time data for a driver of the vehicle indicative of an amount of driving time of the driver during a time period ([Nista 0045]: Nista inherently teaches that drive time is recorded by teaching that the system may determine that a driver has driven more than the maximum permitted driving time.); and
one of the trigger events corresponds to the driving time exceeding a predefined drive time threshold for the time period ([Nista 0045]: “A sound-emitting device 62 (e.g., a speaker or buzzer) is configured to provide audio alerts, such as, e.g., an alarm to indicate that a speed of the vehicle 20 exceeds a maximum permitted speed threshold and/or to indicate the driver 12 has exceeded a maximum permitted driving time during a particular time period.”).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of prior art further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein:
the control circuitry is configured to receive spoken commands from the microphone and control at least one of the plurality of vehicle systems based on the spoken commands (Boesen [0094]: “For example, the vehicle 2 may be unlockable via a voice command such as “unlock” or the vehicle 2 may be remote started and environmentally set via a voice command such as “start my car and set temperature to 72 degrees.”); and
to control at least one of the vehicle systems based on the spoken commands, the control circuitry is configured to perform one or more of:
command the camera monitor system to adjust how it provides images of an area around the commercial vehicle or to initiate an event recording session;
command an infotainment system to adjust an HVAC system of the commercial vehicle (Boesen [0094]: “For example, the vehicle 2 may be unlockable via a voice command such as “unlock” or the vehicle 2 may be remote started and environmentally set via a voice command such as “start my car and set temperature to 72 degrees.”);
command a cabin lighting system to adjust cabin lighting of the commercial vehicle;
command an electronic logging device system to authenticate a driver of the commercial vehicle or adjust a duty status of the driver.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4, applied to the method.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 as applied to the method.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 as applied to the method.
Claim 20 is rejected over the same reasons as claim 8 as applied to the method.
Claims 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boesen (US 20170153636 B1) in view of Knight (US 20110054730 A1), Ishii (US 20140280177 A1), Bolourchi (US 20090091435 A1), and Nista (US 20210125426 A1), further in view of Takahashi (US 20050195092 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Boesen, Knight, Ishii, Bolourchi, and Nista teaches the system of claim 4.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein:
the plurality of vehicle systems includes a vehicle monitoring system which is configured to monitor vehicle data indicative of an operational condition of the commercial vehicle; and
one of the alerts corresponds to the vehicle data from the vehicle monitoring system crossing a predefined warning threshold.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein:
the plurality of vehicle systems includes a vehicle monitoring system which is configured to monitor vehicle data indicative of an operational condition of the commercial vehicle (Takahashi FIG. 1, [0074]: “The sensor section 110 recognizes the situations of the travel of the vehicle according to the detection signals output from the various sensors including a sensor for detecting the fuel level, . . . a sensor for detecting the temperature of the engine that is an internal combustion engine . . . ”); and
one of the alerts corresponds to the vehicle data from the vehicle monitoring system crossing a predefined warning threshold (Takahashi [0113]: “For example, assume that the engine temperature rises above a predetermined temperature and it is necessary to notify the engine overheat by emitting an alarm sound while notifying that the fuel level is low by emitting another alarm sound.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the alert priority system of the above combination of prior art with the device that monitors vehicle data and emits an audio alert when engine temperature is above a threshold temperature. Doing so would have improved user situational awareness by alerting them if engine temperature is too high.
Claim 18 is rejected over the same reasons as claim 7 as applied to the method.
Regarding claim 19, the above combination of prior art teaches the method of claim 18.
This combination further teaches wherein the predefined warning threshold is a tire pressure threshold, an engine temperature threshold ([Takahashi 0113]: “For example, assume that the engine temperature rises above a predetermined temperature and it is necessary to notify the engine overheat by emitting an alarm sound while notifying that the fuel level is low by emitting another alarm sound.”), or a fuel level threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Avery, JR et al. US 20090096597 A1. DRIVER INTERFACE UNIT.
Geller, Avishai et al. US 20160133117 A1. SYSTEM FOR MONITORING VEHICLE OPERATOR COMPLIANCE WITH SAFE OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Nania, Adrian. US 20180015825 A1. OCCUPANT ALERTNESS-BASED NAVIGATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665