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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to due to a grammatical error which renders the claims unclear. The phrase “the driver has not visually recognizing…” employs an incorrect verb form. The auxiliary verb “has” must be followed by a past participle, not a present participle.
To correct this, applicant may consider amending the phrase to, for example:
“the driver has not visually recognized…” or
“the driver is not visually recognizing…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–3, 6, 9–11, 13–18, 20, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the exception. Claims 19, 21, and 24, by contrast, include further limitations (executing control of the vehicle) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus claims 19, 21, and 24 are not rejected under this section. The basis for this determination is set forth in detail below.
I. Claims 1, 9, 14 (and Those Depending Therefrom Except 19, 21, 24) – Directed to an Abstract Idea
Analyzing representative independent claim 1 (as amended) under the Alice/Mayo framework (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One), the claim is directed to an abstract idea. In substance, claim 1 recites a method for monitoring a driver’s attentiveness (detecting a “pre-abnormal” cognitive state of the driver by processing sensor data) and then providing guidance information to the driver if such a state is detected (e.g. emphasizing certain visual cues the driver missed). This concept – detecting a driver’s state of attention or impairment and informing the driver – is a mental or abstract process akin to human observation and warning, implemented with generic computing components. The Federal Circuit has held that screening an equipment operator for impairment and notifying or taking action is an abstract idea, essentially a form of human activity and mental evaluation. Here, the focus of the claims is likewise the “abstract idea of testing [vehicle operators] for any kind of physical or mental impairment” (specifically, detecting a decline in distributive attention).
Furthermore, the steps recited in claim 1 (and similarly in claims 9 and 14) — collecting information (e.g. “travel environment information” to identify required points, and driver head/eye orientation data), analyzing that information (determining whether the driver failed to recognize a required point, thereby indicating the “pre-abnormal” state), and outputting guidance (causing an information output device to direct the driver’s attention to the missed point) — all fall squarely within the realm of abstract ideas. Information per se is intangible, and “collecting information, including when limited to particular content…lies within the realm of abstract ideas.” Likewise, analyzing information by correlating data or applying rules (whether by mental steps or mathematical algorithms) is treated as an abstract mental process. Finally, merely presenting the results of such analysis (for example, providing a visual or audio alert or guidance to the driver) is itself an abstract ancillary aspect of information analysis. In short, claim 1 is directed to gathering data, evaluating it according to a cognitive rule, and informing a user of a condition, which is an abstract idea under §101.
It is noted that limiting the idea to the field of vehicle safety or using technical jargon (e.g. “distributive attention function” or “visual recognition required points”) does not save the claim. Courts have repeatedly found that restricting an abstract concept to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to confer eligibility. Here, the concept of monitoring a driver’s attention and issuing a warning is an abstract idea, even if applied in the context of a computerized vehicle safety system. The improved result (earlier detection of driver inattention) touted by Applicant is certainly a worthy goal, but the claim as drafted is directed to the result or effect itself, achieved via generic data processing, rather than to a specific technical improvement in how computers or vehicles operate. As explained in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., the claims focus on “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” without a specific inventive technical means – such claims, “defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving it, fail under §101”. The same is true here – the claims recite the idea of detecting a driver’s lapses in attention using data and alerting the driver, implemented with conventional sensors and processors, which is an abstract idea.
Accordingly, for Step 2A, Prong One, the claimed invention (excluding claims 19, 21, 24) is directed to an abstract idea. This satisfies Alice/Mayo step one.
II. No Integration into a Practical Application – Lacking “Significantly More” (Step 2A, Prong Two)
Because the claims (except 19, 21, 24) are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider whether any additional elements in the claims integrate that idea into a practical application or add an “inventive concept” sufficient to confer eligibility (Alice step two). Here, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea include generic components such as: a controller/processor, one or more environment sensors/cameras (to gather driving environment or driver observation data), an information output device (to present guidance to the driver), and the operations of receiving, processing, and outputting information. These elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Importantly, the claims (aside from 19, 21, 24) do not effect any tangible result or improvement in technology beyond executing the data analysis and displaying a form of information to the driver. Simply notifying or advising the driver (even in an “emphasized” manner via an output device) is not a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer or machine; rather, it is an intended use of the information for a human end-user. Courts have held that alerting a user based on processed data is generally an insignificant post-solution activity that cannot transform an abstract idea into a patentable invention. For example, in Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court found that updating an alarm limit based on a calculated value was mere “post-solution activity” appended to an abstract formula, and thus insufficient for eligibility. Likewise here, the step of causing an output device to direct the driver’s attention (i.e. providing a warning or guidance) is analogous to Flook’s alarm – it is a routine, conventional step to alert a user once a condition is detected, and does not integrate the underlying idea into a further technical application. It is simply using the abstract outcome (identification of inattention) to advise the driver, which is a non-technological human-centered activity.
The lack of specific inventive technology or defined mechanism in the claims underscores their ineligibility. The recited components are all generic and function in their ordinary capacities: e.g., using cameras or sensors to collect data, using a standard processor to execute analysis, and using a display or speaker to output information. There is no new type of sensor, no improved hardware, and no particular software technique or algorithm specified beyond the abstract “correlating” of known data to determine a known result (driver inattention). As the Federal Circuit noted in Electric Power Group, the mere use of existing data sources and conventional technology to implement an abstract analysis does not supply an inventive concept. Here, “limiting the claims to a particular technological environment” (vehicle driver assistance) or “merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information…to provide a ‘humanly comprehensible’ amount of information” (e.g. highlighting a missed traffic sign for the driver) “does not transform the otherwise-abstract process” of gathering and analyzing data. The claims do not require any “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but rather “call for performance of the information collection, analysis, and display functions on a set of generic computer components”. In short, considering the elements both individually and in combination, there is nothing that elevates the claimed process above the abstract idea itself – the hardware is purely generic and employed in a routine manner, and the data-processing steps are typical of mental or algorithmic analysis.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the claims solve a “technical problem” (inability of prior systems to detect subtle cognitive decline) and thereby improve vehicle safety technology. However, to satisfy §101, the claim must recite a specific technical solution or improvement, not merely an abstract idea of using data to achieve a better result. The courts draw a distinction between claims that truly improve the functioning of a machine or technology and those that invoke computers as tools to implement an abstract concept. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., for example, the claims were found non-abstract because they focused on a specific improved data structure that enhanced computer operation. Here, by contrast, the present claims use conventional computing components to implement an external goal (monitoring a driver’s attentiveness) – the computer itself is not improved, nor is any internal component (the controller, sensors, etc.) performing anything other than well-known functions. The purported improvement lies in what is being detected or the accuracy of detecting a human condition, which is a qualitative benefit, but not a technological improvement to the computer or vehicle systems themselves as claimed. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that claims using computers as tools to monitor data in real time were still abstract because they did not improve the computer’s functionality, but merely employed it for processing data).
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a “practical application” by virtue of controlling a device (the information output device) to assist the driver in real-time. Simply put, providing information or guidance to a user is not the kind of “control” or physical transformation that confers eligibility. Courts have consistently held that outputs such as notifications, alerts, or displaying guidance are insufficient to render an abstract process patent-eligible, as they constitute mere presentation of results. Unlike the situation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where an algorithm was integrated into a physical process of curing rubber (opening and closing a mold) to improve that industrial process, the present claims (except as discussed for claims 19, 21, 24) do not recite any comparable real-world transformation or control of a physical thing. In Diehr, the claimed invention was “not just a mathematical algorithm but also a process including steps to cure rubber,” and thus was deemed patentable. Here, by contrast, the end result of the core claims is to inform a human driver (via emphasized visuals or sounds) – no further automatic action is taken to change the state of the vehicle or another physical process. Merely aiding a person’s judgment with information, while valuable, remains an abstract, intellectual endeavor from the standpoint of patent law. It “amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea…on a generic computer”, which is not enough to confer eligibility under Alice.
For at least the reasons above, claims 1–3, 6, 9–11, 13–18, 20, 22, 23, and 25 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. No inventive concept is present in these claims beyond the abstract idea, as the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (e.g. using cameras and gaze detection to monitor driver attention, and providing alerts – techniques already known in driver-assistance systems, cf. Feit et al., discussed in the prior art context). Accordingly, these claims fail Alice step two as well, and the §101 rejection of these claims is maintained.
III. Claims 19, 21, and 24 – Integration into a Practical Application
Dependent claims 19, 21, and 24 have been added/amended to include a further limitation of executing control over the vehicle in response to the detected pre-abnormal state. These claims expressly go beyond merely informing the driver: they require the system to take action to control a component or aspect of the vehicle (for example, automatically controlling the vehicle’s operation or otherwise intervening in vehicle control when the driver’s attention is determined to be deficient). This additional element — a control operation affecting the vehicle itself — fundamentally changes the nature of the outcome from simply providing information to actively altering a tangible system (the vehicle’s driving behavior or controls). In the language of the USPTO eligibility guidance, claims 19, 21, and 24 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by actually applying the detected condition to achieve a technical outcome (vehicle control), rather than stopping at a mere notification.
This distinction is critical. By causing a physical change in the state of the vehicle (e.g., engaging an autonomous safety maneuver, adjusting vehicle speed or steering, etc.), these claims tie the computational observation to a specific tangible improvement in safety. They ensure that the idea of detecting driver inattention is not just an end in itself, but a means to automatically enhance the operation of the vehicle. This moves the claims closer to the realm of technological processes rather than abstract mental processes. Indeed, the concept is analogous to the principle in Diamond v. Diehr: just as Diehr’s algorithm was used to automatically control a rubber-molding press (a physical process) and thereby was patent-eligible, here the detection algorithm is used to automatically control a vehicle system (a physical process in the realm of automotive technology). The practical, real-world application of the abstract idea is thus achieved in claims 19, 21, and 24, satisfying Alice step two. Stated differently, these claims impart a technological implementation (vehicle control) that goes beyond merely “advising a person of a condition” and instead effect a change in machine operation to address the condition.
Accordingly, claims 19, 21, and 24 are deemed to recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and are considered patent-eligible subject matter. The §101 rejection is withdrawn for these specific claims in light of the added “vehicle control” limitations that integrate the underlying idea into a practical, technological solution.
IV. Examiner Conclusion
In summary, except for the noted allowable dependent claims 19, 21, and 24, the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims (1–3, 6, 9–11, 13–18, 20, 22, 23, 25) are directed to an abstract idea – monitoring a driver’s attention and providing feedback – and lack additional elements amounting to significantly more than that idea. The routine use of sensors, processing, and output devices to implement the concept does not confer patent-eligibility. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been carefully considered, but for the reasons above, they do not persuade the Office that these claims have been “transformed” into an eligible application of the idea. The rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 9–11, 13–18, 20, 22, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained, while claims 19, 21, and 24 are determined to be patent-eligible in view of their recited vehicle-control features.
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 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feit et al. (US 20170247031 A1), herein after will be referred to as Feit, in view of Fletcher et al. (Driver Inattention Detection based on Eye Gaze—Road Event Correlation), herein after will be referred to as Fletcher, and in view of Reimer (Impact of Cognitive Task Complexity on Drivers’ Visual Tunneling).
Regarding Claim 1,
Feit discloses:
“A driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit expressly describes a detection apparatus combining multiple subsystems, satisfying the claimed driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus.
“that detects an abnormal state”
Excerpt: “The CMBS operating in conjunction with an eye gaze detection system assesses whether the driver is inattentive based on their gaze direction.” (See at least [0070])
Rationale: Feit’s inattention detection is a manifestation of the pre-abnormal state because it is identified prior to the abnormal state of a collision.
“of a driver who drives a vehicle,”
Excerpt: “An automobile is provided with radar, cameras, and a gaze detector to monitor the driver.” (See at least [0010])
Rationale: Feit is expressly directed to an automobile with a human driver.
“the driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus comprising: a travel environment information acquisition sensor”
Excerpt: “The system includes radar sensors that detect vehicles and obstacles in the environment.” (See at least [0031])
Rationale: Radar sensors constitute travel environment information acquisition sensors.
“that acquires travel environment information of the vehicle;”
Excerpt: “Radar detects a vehicle’s surrounding circumstances.” (See at least [0031])
Rationale: Feit explicitly discloses sensors acquiring travel environment information.
“a sightline detector”
Excerpt: “The eye gaze detector determines where the driver is looking.” (See at least [0035])
Rationale: Feit teaches a detector for the driver’s sightline.
“that detects the driver’s sightline;”
Excerpt: “CMBS communicates with the eye gaze detection system to determine where the driver is looking.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit explicitly discloses the driver’s sightline being detected.
“an information output device”
Excerpt: “If the driver is inattentive, the system issues an alert to the driver.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit includes an output device that provides driver alerts.
“configured to output information to the driver;”
Excerpt: “When inattentive, the system generates an alert 765.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit shows the information output device configured to provide alerts.
“and a controller”
Excerpt: “A controller integrates radar inputs and gaze detection to assess inattention.” (See at least [0075])
Rationale: Feit expressly discloses a controller managing system operations.
“configured to detect the driver’s abnormal state”
Excerpt: “The controller determines inattention based on eye gaze and radar detection.” (See at least [0075])
Rationale: The controller detects inattention, aligning with detecting an abnormal state.
“based on the travel environment information”
Excerpt: “Controller considers target vehicle detection and radar distance information.” (See at least [0078])
Rationale: Feit detects states using environmental sensor data.
“and the driver’s sightline,”
Excerpt: “Eye gaze detection is integrated with CMBS.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit relies on sightline detection for state analysis.
“wherein the controller is configured to: identify a plurality of visual recognition required points”
Excerpt: “The system identifies a target vehicle in front based on radar detection.” (See at least [0078])
Rationale: Feit identifies a recognition point (a target vehicle). Extension to a plurality is obvious, as Fletcher teaches monitoring multiple points such as traffic signs.
“to be visually recognized by the driver”
Excerpt: “Radar detects a forward vehicle for driver recognition.” (See at least [0078])
Rationale: Feit discloses the driver must recognize detected vehicles.
“based on the travel environment information;”
Excerpt: “Controller processes radar environment inputs to identify relevant vehicles.” (See at least [0078])
Rationale: Visual points are identified using travel environment information.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“determine, for each of the plurality of visual recognition required points, whether the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point based on when the driver’s sightline is not directed within a specified range of the visual recognition required point;”
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state, the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points;”
“and cause the information output device to output sightline guidance information to direct the driver’s sightline to the at least one of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Fletcher discloses:
“determine, for each of the plurality of visual recognition required points, whether the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point based on when the driver’s sightline is not directed within a specified range of the visual recognition required point;”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen … tolerance ±7.5° horizontal, ±6.6° vertical.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses angular tolerance criteria for recognition, meeting the “specified range” requirement.
“and cause the information output device to output sightline guidance information to direct the driver’s sightline to the at least one of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Excerpt: “Victor (2005) developed the Percentage Road Centre (PRC) metric … used a trail of colored lights to lead the driver’s attention back to the road.” (Fletcher, Sec. 2.4, p. 779)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses output of gaze guidance information to redirect sightline to unrecognized points.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to refine Feit’s binary gaze model with Fletcher’s angular tolerance checks and guidance cues, thereby improving detection of missed recognition points and actively redirecting attention.
However, Feit and Fletcher do not explicitly disclose:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state, the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points.”
Reimer discloses:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state,”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses detecting a pre-abnormal state before vehicle control impairment.
“the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined”
Excerpt: “Gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses decline in distributive attention through narrowed gaze distributions.
“prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving”
Excerpt: “Workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses the attention decline occurs prior to abnormal difficulty in driving.
“based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points.”
Excerpt: “Peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses that reduced peripheral vision leads to missed recognition of required points.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer before them, to detect multiple missed points using tolerance checks (Fletcher), interpret this as a pre-abnormal state of distributive attention decline (Reimer), and use output guidance (Fletcher) within Feit’s CMBS apparatus, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2,
Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Feit discloses:
“The driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus,”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit describes the apparatus of claim 1, including sensors, eye gaze detection, and a CMBS controller.
“Wherein the controller”
Excerpt: “A controller integrates radar inputs and gaze detection to assess inattention.” (See at least [0075])
Rationale: Feit explicitly discloses a controller that integrates gaze and environment data.
“is configured to: determine that the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point”
Excerpt: “If the driver is looking at the road … the system maintains or decreases the alert threshold distance value.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit teaches determining visual recognition of a forward vehicle as a recognition point.
“in the case where the driver’s sightline”
Excerpt: “CMBS communicates with the eye gaze detection system to determine where the driver is looking.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit explicitly ties recognition to the driver’s sightline.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“is directed within a specified range including the visual recognition required point;”
“and detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state based on a number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Fletcher discloses:
“is directed within a specified range including the visual recognition required point;”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen … tolerance ±7.5° horizontal, ±6.6° vertical.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses angular tolerance checks, satisfying the “specified range” requirement.
“and detect based on a number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Excerpt: “If it appears the driver has not looked at the road sign and, over time, a speed adjustment is expected and has not occurred, a more prominent warning is given … warnings are only given when the driver is not aware of the change of conditions.” (Fletcher, p. 788, Sec. 4.3)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses escalation logic based on multiple missed recognition points, meeting the “number … not visually recognized” requirement.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to extend Feit’s binary recognition to angular tolerance checks and to detect pre-abnormal states when several recognition points are missed, thereby improving predictive detection.
However, Feit and Fletcher do not explicitly disclose:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
(This definitional aspect flows from Claim 1 being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving)
Reimer discloses:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered … gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer directly supports the definition of pre-abnormal state as distributive attention decline preceding abnormal vehicle control difficulty.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer before them, to detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state using multiple missed recognition points (Feit + Fletcher) and interpret that condition as a distributive attention decline prior to abnormal state (Reimer), thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3,
Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Feit discloses:
“The driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus,”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit describes the apparatus.
“Wherein the controller”
Excerpt: “A controller integrates radar inputs and gaze detection to assess inattention.” (See at least [0075])
Rationale: Feit discloses the required controller structure.
“is configured to detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Excerpt: “The CMBS operating in conjunction with an eye gaze detection system assesses whether the driver is inattentive based on their gaze direction.” (See at least [0070])
Rationale: Feit detects inattention as a pre-abnormal state.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“in the case where a ratio of the number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver to the total number of the visual recognition required points is equal to or larger than a specified value.”
Fletcher discloses:
“in the case where a ratio of the number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver to the total number of the visual recognition required points is equal to or larger than a specified value.”
Excerpt: “However, if it appears that the driver has not looked at the road sign and, over time, a speed adjustment is expected and has not occurred, a more prominent warning would be given... Warnings are only given when the driver is not aware of the change of conditions.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.3, p. 788)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses a threshold-based warning system where detection requires crossing conditions of multiple missed events. While Fletcher illustrates escalation with a single sign plus absence of corrective action, a PHOSITA would have recognized that generalizing this to a ratio of missed-to-total recognition points is an obvious design choice. This prevents false alarms from isolated misses and aligns with Fletcher’s intent to warn only when a meaningful threshold of unawareness is reached.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to modify Feit’s apparatus to apply Fletcher’s threshold-based logic across multiple recognition points by implementing a ratio calculation (missed ÷ total ≥ specified value), producing a predictable and more robust system for detecting pre-abnormal states.
However, Feit and Fletcher do not explicitly disclose:
“the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Reimer discloses:
“the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered … gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer explicitly defines pre-abnormal state as a decline in distributive attention occurring before vehicle control impairment, satisfying the inherited claim definition.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer before them, to detect pre-abnormal states by applying a ratio threshold of missed-to-total recognition points (Fletcher) within Feit’s apparatus and interpret that threshold crossing as the distributive attention decline prior to abnormal driving difficulty (Reimer), thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6,
Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Feit discloses:
“The driver pre-abnormal detection apparatus,”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit discloses the apparatus.
“wherein the controller”
Excerpt: “A controller integrates radar inputs and gaze detection to assess inattention.” (See at least [0075])
Rationale: Feit describes the controller structure.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“is configured to: estimate a size of an effective visual field visually recognized by the driver based on a distance between the driver’s sightline and the visual recognition required point not visually recognized by the driver;”
“and detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state in the case where the estimated effective visual field size is smaller than a specified value.”
Fletcher discloses:
“is configured to: estimate a size of an effective visual field visually recognized by the driver based on a distance between the driver’s sightline and the visual recognition required point not visually recognized by the driver;”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen … tolerance ±7.5° horizontal, ±6.6° vertical.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher explicitly measures angular distance between gaze and target, enabling estimation of the driver’s effective visual field size.
“and in the case where the estimated effective visual field size is smaller than a specified value.”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen …” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher inherently teaches that if gaze is outside tolerance, the target is not recognized. This cutoff equates to detecting when the effective visual field is smaller than a specified value (the tolerance threshold).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to estimate effective visual field size using gaze–target distance and detect pre-abnormal states whenever this field narrows below a specified threshold, improving safety detection.
However, Feit and Fletcher do not explicitly disclose:
“the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Reimer discloses:
“the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered … gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer directly discloses that narrowing of gaze (decline in distributive attention) occurs before abnormal driving, supplying the definitional disclosure.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer before them, to incorporate Fletcher’s angular tolerance and gaze concentration metrics into Feit’s apparatus and interpret narrowing effective field as the distributive attention decline defined by Reimer, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9,
Feit discloses:
“A driver pre-abnormal detection circuit”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit discloses a detection circuit/system integrating subsystems, satisfying the claimed “driver pre-abnormal detection circuit.”
“for detecting an abnormal state of a driver who drives a vehicle,”
Excerpt: “The CMBS operating in conjunction with an eye gaze detection system assesses whether the driver is inattentive based on their gaze direction.” (See at least [0070])
Rationale: Feit discloses detecting inattention, which corresponds to detecting a “pre-abnormal state” of a driver in a vehicle.
“the driver pre-abnormal detection circuit being configured to: acquire travel environment information of the vehicle;”
Excerpt: “Radar sensors detect vehicles and obstacles in the environment.” (See at least [0031])
Rationale: Feit discloses radar sensors acquiring travel environment information of the vehicle.
“acquire the driver’s sightline;”
Excerpt: “The eye gaze detector determines where the driver is looking.” (See at least [0035])
Rationale: Feit discloses acquiring the driver’s sightline.
“identify a plurality of visual recognition required points to be visually recognized by the driver based on the travel environment information;”
Excerpt: “The system identifies a target vehicle in front based on radar detection.” (See at least [0078])
Rationale: Feit discloses identifying a single recognition point. Expanding to a plurality would have been obvious, as Fletcher discloses monitoring multiple points such as traffic signs.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“determine, for each of the plurality of visual recognition required points whether the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point based on when the driver’s sightline is not directed within a specified range of the visual recognition required point;”
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state, the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points;”
“and cause an information output device to output sightline guidance information to direct the driver’s sightline to the at least one of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Fletcher discloses:
“determine, for each of the plurality of visual recognition required points whether the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point based on when the driver’s sightline is not directed within a specified range of the visual recognition required point;”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen … tolerance ±7.5° horizontal, ±6.6° vertical.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses specified angular ranges for determining recognition, satisfying this limitation.
“and cause an information output device”
Excerpt: “If the driver is inattentive, the system issues an alert to the driver.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit discloses causing an information output device.
“to output sightline guidance information”
Excerpt: “Victor (2005) developed the Percentage Road Centre (PRC) metric … used a trail of colored lights to lead the driver’s attention back to the road.” (Fletcher, Sec. 2.4, p. 779)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses outputting sightline guidance information.
“to direct the driver’s sightline”
Excerpt: “A trail of colored lights was used to lead the driver’s attention back to the road.” (Fletcher, Sec. 2.4, p. 779)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses directing the driver’s sightline.
“to the at least one of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Excerpt: “Warnings are only given when the driver is not aware of the change of conditions.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.3, p. 788)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses redirection of attention when points are not recognized.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to expand Feit’s detection circuit with Fletcher’s tolerance-based recognition determination and sightline guidance outputs to direct attention to missed recognition points.
However, Feit and Fletcher do not explicitly disclose:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state, the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points.”
Reimer discloses:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state,”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses detecting a pre-abnormal state before vehicle control impairment.
“the pre-abnormal state being a state in which a driver’s distributive attention function is declined”
Excerpt: “Gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses decline in distributive attention through narrowed gaze distributions.
“prior to an abnormal state where the driver has difficulty in driving”
Excerpt: “Workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses the attention decline occurs prior to abnormal difficulty in driving.
“based on a fact that the driver has not visually recognizing at least one of the visual recognition required points;”
Excerpt: “Peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses that reduced peripheral vision leads to missed recognition of required points.
“and cause an information output device to output sightline guidance information to direct the driver's sightline to the at least one of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver (this is supplied by Fletcher as mapped earlier)
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit (circuit, sensors, alerts), Fletcher (plurality, tolerance checks, sightline guidance), and Reimer (pre-abnormal definition), to implement a circuit that acquires environment and gaze information, determines recognition with tolerance, outputs sightline guidance, and interprets missed recognition as distributive attention decline prior to abnormal driving.
Regarding Claim 10,
Feit, Fletcher and Reimer discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Feit discloses:
“The driver pre-abnormal detection circuit,”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at least [0006])
Rationale: Feit discloses a detection circuit form.
“wherein the driver pre-abnormal detection circuit is configured to: determine that the driver has visually recognized the visual recognition required point”
Excerpt: “If the driver is looking at the road … the system maintains or decreases the alert threshold distance value.” (See at least [0072])
Rationale: Feit discloses recognition of a visual point (road/vehicle) when gaze is directed appropriately.
“in the case where the driver’s sightline is directed”
Excerpt: “The eye gaze detector determines where the driver is looking.” (See at least [0035])
Rationale: Feit discloses sightline direction as the basis for recognition.
However, Feit does not explicitly disclose:
“within a specified range including the visual recognition required point;”
“and detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state based on a number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Fletcher discloses:
“within a specified range including the visual recognition required point;”
Excerpt: “If the angles from any previous frame fall within the tolerance, the sign is reported as being seen … tolerance ±7.5° horizontal, ±6.6° vertical.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.4, p. 789)
Rationale: Fletcher discloses angular tolerance ranges for determining recognition, satisfying the “specified range” requirement.
“and detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state based on a number of the visual recognition required points not visually recognized by the driver.”
Excerpt: “Warnings are only given when the driver is not aware of the change of conditions.” (Fletcher, Sec. 4.3, p. 788)
Refined Rationale: Fletcher teaches that warnings are suppressed if a sign is seen but escalated if it is missed. This establishes the principle that unrecognized points are the trigger for state detection. A person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to implement this principle by counting occurrences of unrecognized points (‘a number’), thereby creating a more robust, statistically significant detection method consistent with the claim.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit and Fletcher before them, to refine Feit’s recognition system with Fletcher’s tolerance-based range logic and to detect pre-abnormal states based on a numerical count of missed recognition points.
Reimer discloses:
“detect the driver’s pre-abnormal state”
Excerpt: “A low to moderate increase in workload was detectable as a change in gaze before vehicle control suffered … gaze distributions were significantly smaller … peripheral vision was thereby reduced.” (Reimer, Sec. 3.2 Results, p. 109)
Rationale: Reimer discloses that the pre-abnormal state is a decline in distributive attention occurring prior to abnormal difficulty in driving.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having Feit (apparatus, gaze acquisition), Fletcher (specified range, principle of missed points), and Reimer (pre-abnormal definition), to configure the circuit to determine recognition within a specified range and to detect pre-abnormal states based on a numerical count of unrecognized points.
Regarding Claim 11,
Feit, Fletcher, and Reimer disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Feit discloses:
“The driver pre-abnormal detection circuit,”
Excerpt: “A system for preventing accidents includes an eye gaze detector, crash mitigation braking system (CMBS), lane keeping assist system (LKAS) and blind spot information system (BSI).” (See at