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 . Claims 11-30 were previously pending in this application. Claims 11, 13, 15, 19, 21, 23, and 27-28 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 11-30 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 23, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15, 23, and 28 recite “a numerical value is beyond…” and should instead recite –[[a]]the numerical value is beyond…--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-15, 18-23, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (DE 10 2013 014 887 A1, a full machine translation of which was attached to the Office action dated 12/31/2024 and is being relied upon) in view of Parundekar (US 2018/0005525 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 27, Hamberger discloses a method and an apparatus for operating a motor vehicle, comprising: an operator control interface (see at least [0012, 0019] – Operating device); at least one camera monitoring device, configured to monitor movement of a vehicle driver associated with a manual actuation of the operator control interface by the vehicle driver, the monitoring comprising at least one of a gaze of the vehicle driver and/or of a front-seat passenger, a movement of at least one hand of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger, and a movement of at least one finger of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger (see at least [0012-0013, 0019] – A detection device is provided which is designed to check and signal whether the driver of the motor vehicle or a person other than the driver is operating the operating device… a camera through which the motor vehicle interior is filmed, as well as an image analysis device which, for example, recognizes whether an input context was activated by an operating action of the driver or by the operating action of another person.); and a control unit configured to determine, based on the monitored movement, whether the monitored vehicle driver is distracted by an operating intention or operating action that is already in progress according to a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed (see at least [0012-0013, 0019, 0022] - Recognizes whether an input context was activated by an operating action of the driver or by the operating action of another person. The operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic… the at least one input context has several subsections, for example several operating menus of a menu navigation or several text input fields. Each of these subsections includes a variable complexity parameter, such as a storage space for digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded, i.e., whether the voice dialog system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. They can decide, for example, whether a particular menu does not pose a risk of distraction when a driver operates it using the manual input method. If, on the other hand, it is decided that a particular section is too complex to be operated using the manual input modality while the vehicle is in motion, or during certain cornering maneuvers or other driving situations marked as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded. The operating device then only activates the second input mode for such a subsection, depending on the driving situation parameter for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold.), the operating intention or operating action comprising activities from a predetermined group of activities of the vehicle driver that are not directly related to movement and/or directional control of the motor vehicle (see at least [0012, 0019] - As already explained, one or more devices of the motor vehicle can be operated by means of the operating device in such a way that input data can be determined, such as a destination input for a navigation assistance system or the selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception. To do this, the operator must perform a specific operating action.); present an alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle to the vehicle driver or occupant in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted (see at least [0014, 0017-0019] - The operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic.); and implement the alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted (see at least [0017-0019] - The development further provides that the operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver.).
Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose the predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver.
Hamberger does evaluate a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from input context indicating which individual section of the operating device is being operated by the driver. However, the individual section of the operating device being operated is not detected by the at least one camera monitoring device.
Parundekar uses a camera to identify different eye gaze zones and different hand placement zones of the driver, and this eye gaze data and hand placement data is then considered as factors to indicate driver activity with a head unit or infotainment system. Parundekar uses the eye gaze data and hand placement data to generate a confidence factor that is compared to a threshold to indicate whether the driver is distracted.
Parundekar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver (see at least [0130-0133, 0137-0138] – The gaze data 183 may describe the gaze of the driver. The gaze data 183 may be captured by one or more interior cameras. The interior of the main vehicle 123 may be divided into eye gaze zones. The gaze data 183 may describe which eye gaze zone the driver is gazing at and for how long the driver is gazing at this eye gaze zone. Certain eye gaze zones may be associated with driver distraction. For example, if the driver is gazing at a passenger in the vehicle then they may be distracted. If the gaze data 183 indicates that the driver is gazing at an eye gaze zone associated with distraction for a period of time that exceeds a time threshold for that eye gaze zone, then the driver service module 199 may output an estimate 187 that the driver is distracted. The hand data 184 may describe the hand placement of the driver of the main vehicle. The hand data 184 may be captured by one or more interior cameras. The interior of the main vehicle 123 may be divided into hand placement zones. The hand data 184 may describe which hand placement zone the driver's hands are located in and for how long the driver leaves their hands in this hand placement zone. Certain hand placement zones may be associated with driver distraction. For example, if the driver's hands are placed on the knobs of a head unit or infotainment system then the driver may be distracted. If the hand data 184 indicates that the driver's hands are located in a hand placement zone associated with distraction for a period of time that exceeds a time threshold for that hand placement zone, then the driver service module 199 may output an estimate 187 that the driver is distracted… confidence factor that the driver is distracted… For example, all three of the gaze data 183, hand data 184 and activity data 185 may be considered as factors that indicate driver activity with a head unit or infotainment system (e.g., the driver is gazing at the head unit while their hands are placed on the head unit and the feedback loop of the head unit indicates that one or more buttons are being pressed). The confidence factor that the driver is distracted may increase as more of these factors (gaze data 183, hand data 184, activity data 185) indicate driver distraction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Parundekar into the invention of Hamberger with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the confidence for determining whether the driver is distracted (Parundekar – [0137]).
Regarding claim 12, Hamberger discloses wherein the presenting of the alternative operating type selection comprises presenting a voice control instead of the manual actuation ([0014, 0017-0019] – Speech dialogue system).
Regarding claim 13, Hamberger discloses wherein the predetermined driver-distraction criterion comprises activities from a predetermined group of activities of the vehicle driver that are not directly related to movement and/or directional control of the motor vehicle ([0012, 0019] - As already explained, one or more devices of the motor vehicle can be operated by means of the operating device in such a way that input data can be determined, such as a destination input for a navigation assistance system or the selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception. To do this, the operator must perform a specific operating action.).
Parundekar, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined driver-distraction criterion comprises activities from a predetermined group of activities of the vehicle driver that are not directly related to movement and/or directional control of the motor vehicle (see at least [0130-0133, 0137-0138]).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Parundekar is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Hamberger discloses wherein the predetermined group of activities ([0012, 0022]) comprise one or more of (i) operating an infotainment system ([0012] – Selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception), (ii) operating a navigation device ([0012] – Navigation assistance system), (iii) operating an on-board computer and/or (iv) carrying out switching processes on a dashboard of the motor vehicle.
Parundekar, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined group of activities comprise one or more of (i) operating an infotainment system ([0132-0133]), (ii) operating a navigation device, (iii) operating an on-board computer and/or (iv) carrying out switching processes on a dashboard of the motor vehicle.
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Parundekar is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hamberger discloses further comprising determining a numerical value based on each of the activities from the predetermined group, wherein the predetermined driver-distraction criterion includes that a numerical value is beyond a threshold value of the determined numerical value ([0022] - According to this embodiment, the at least one input context has a plurality of subsections, for example a plurality of operating menus of a menu navigation or a plurality of text input fields. Each of these subsections comprises a variable complexity parameter, for example a storage space for storing digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity is exceeded, i.e. whether the voice dialogue system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. These can decide, for example, whether a certain operating menu does not pose a risk of distraction if a driver operates it using the manual input modality. If, however, it is decided that a certain section is too complex to be operated by means of the manual input modality while the motor vehicle is moving or during certain curves or other driving situations identified as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded. The operating device then switches on the second input mode only for such a partial section, depending on the driving situation parameter, for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold. This embodiment has the advantage that it can be determined for individual sections of an input context whether the speech dialogue system should switch on automatically if a dangerous driving situation occurs.).
Parundekar, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: determining a numerical value based on each of the activities from the predetermined group, wherein the predetermined driver-distraction criterion includes that a numerical value is beyond a threshold value of the determined numerical value (see at least [0130-0133, 0137-0138]).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Parundekar is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 18, Hamberger discloses further comprising applying different weightings to the different activities to determine the numerical value ([0022] - According to this embodiment, the at least one input context has a plurality of subsections, for example a plurality of operating menus of a menu navigation or a plurality of text input fields. Each of these subsections comprises a variable complexity parameter, for example a storage space for storing digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity is exceeded, i.e. whether the voice dialogue system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. These can decide, for example, whether a certain operating menu does not pose a risk of distraction if a driver operates it using the manual input modality. If, however, it is decided that a certain section is too complex to be operated by means of the manual input modality while the motor vehicle is moving or during certain curves or other driving situations identified as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded. The operating device then switches on the second input mode only for such a partial section, depending on the driving situation parameter, for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold. This embodiment has the advantage that it can be determined for individual sections of an input context whether the speech dialogue system should switch on automatically if a dangerous driving situation occurs.).
With respect to claims 20-23, 26, and 28 all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 12-15 and 18, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 20-23, 26, and 28 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 12-15 and 18; therefore, claims 20-23, 26, and 28 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 12-15 and 18.
Claims 16-17, 24-25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger in view of Parundekar and Schraut (DE 10 2017 222 997 A1, a full machine translation of which was attached to the Office action dated 12/31/2024 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value comprises a function of a degree of semi-autonomous driving of the motor vehicle.
Schraut, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the threshold value comprises a function of a degree of semi-autonomous driving of the motor vehicle (abstract, page 2, lines 6-34 and page 3, lines 23-27 – depending on the detected autonomy level, the functions of the terminal can then be set, the level of autonomy implicitly defines how much attention needs to be paid to the driving experience).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schraut into the invention of Hamberger with a reasonable expectation of success because when the autonomy level is higher the user can devote their attention to other things, but when the autonomy level changes from a higher level to a lower level, the vehicle user needs to pay more attention to driving (Schraut – page 2, lines 16-21). This would improve overall safety. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that in a vehicle with varying levels of autonomy, the different levels of autonomy would require different levels of attention and therefore the threshold value for providing an alternate operating type should vary in accordance with the autonomy level.
Regarding claim 17, Hamberger discloses further comprising monitoring a traffic situation by at least one traffic monitoring device of the motor vehicle, and wherein the threshold value comprises a function of at least a degree of attention of the vehicle driver and the monitored traffic situation ([0009, 0015-0017, 0019, 0030] – Driving situation parameter indicates a driving speed or a curve position or a distance to a vehicle driving ahead, and represents a measure of how much attention the driver of the vehicle needs to pay to the traffic situation… The development further provides that the operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic.).
Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one traffic monitoring camera.
Schraut, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: at least one traffic monitoring camera ([0017, 0036] – cameras… data about vehicle’s surroundings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schraut into the invention of Hamberger with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of cameras for monitoring the surrounding environment of a vehicle is well known because cameras provide a more comprehensive view of the surroundings than other types of sensors and can be used for object classification and identification. Cameras are also generally less expensive than other types of sensors. Implementing a sensor into Hamberger’s invention in order to monitor the traffic would yield predictable results.
With respect to claims 24 and 29, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 16, and it has been determined that claims 24 and 29 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 16; therefore, claims 24 and 29 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 16.
With respect to claims 25 and 30, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 17, and it has been determined that claims 25 and 30 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 17; therefore, claims 25 and 30 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 17.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-11 filed 3/18/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended limitation “a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Any arguments pertaining to Olsson or the combination of Hamberger and Olsson are moot.
Applicant provides similar arguments that have been addressed in the Office action dated 12/18/2025. Applicant argues that Hamberger does not disclose identifies who initiated the input action, but not “movement of the vehicle driver associated with a manual actuation of at least one operator control interface by the vehicle driver” as recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “movement associated with a manual actuation of the operator control interface by the vehicle driver” is still recited very broadly. According to broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation only requires that the camera detect movement that is associated with a manual actuation of the operator control interface. Therefore, Hamberger’s camera identifying who is activating the input context of the operating device in paragraph [0019] reads on the claim limitation. Other limitations, such as the newly amended limitation “a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver” does appear to further limit this limitation. For this limitation, the examiner relies upon Parundekar at paragraphs [0130-0133, 0137-0138]. Parundekar teaches using a camera that monitors the gaze of the driver and the hand placement of the driver and using these as factors to indicate driver activity with a head unit or infotainment system.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights