DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 10, 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on December 10, 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0166237) in view of Sutherland (U.S. Patent Number 6,218,947), further in view of Power (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0042856).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0166237) in view of Sutherland (U.S. Patent Number 6,218,947) and Power (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0042856), further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170326).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112
The claims were amended to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection. Accordingly, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn, and the claims are no longer to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on December 10, 2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant appears to conclude that claim 1 does not recite a mental process and argues that the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed limitations (Applicant Remarks pages 9). The Applicant further argues that the claimed limitations of claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind (Applicant Remarks pages 9-10). Specifically, that the gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and receiving gripping information from the gripping detection sensor cannot be practically performed in the human mind (Applicant Remarks page 10), and concludes that therefore, claim 1 does not recite a mental process.
The Examiner has considered the arguments presented and respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant appears to incorrectly analyze the limitations under 35 U.S.C. 101 Analysis Step 2A Prong I, specifically arguing that the limitations of “a gripping detection sensor” cannot practically be performed in the human mind. These limitations of claim 1 were analyzed in the Office Action dated September 10, 2025 under 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A Prong II as being mere data input and data output, which does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations “sensor” and “controller” are generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality and do not amount to more than “apply it” to merely apply the abstract idea into the additional elements. For example, a mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer amounts to merely invoking computers to perform an existing process, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Similarly, the claim limitations merely apply the recited sensor and controller to execute the mental process of determining whether a driver is dozing, matching received gripping information with received behavior information, and comparing an observed current gripping information with a current observed behavior of the vehicle. Thus, the claim does not sufficiently integrate the mental process into practical application.
Second, the claim limitations can be reasonably performed in the human mind. The steps reciting “determine whether the driver is dozing,” “match the gripping information received from the gripping detections sensor with the behavior information,” and “generating gripping prediction information” encompass an individual obtaining information that had been collected, and mentally matching grip information with collected vehicle behavior information. For example, the individual may further visually observe, thereby determining, that the driver is dozing. Alternatively, the individual may also determine that a turn is necessary upon entering a road, and predicting that it is necessary for the driver to grip and turn the steering wheel, and comparing the predicted gripping information to the current grip state. An individual may then create a prediction by predicting that the next time a driver turns, the grip information will be similar. The individual may then compare, by visually observing, a current grip state of the driver to a current vehicle behavior, such as visually comparing that the driver is not sufficiently gripping the steering wheel when the vehicle is being driven. Therefore, the claim recites a mental process that can practically be performed in the mind.
Last, the claims do not require that the claim elements provide an improvement to a function of a computer. The Applicant argues that the claim is directed to improvements because “by comparing the current gripping information with the gripping prediction information according to the current behavior information generated based on a result of the matching for each piece of driver identification information, it is possible to more accurately determine whether the driver is dozing” and cites page 21, lines 23-27 of the present application. However, in Berkheimer v. HP INC., 881 F. 3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the federal circuit held that improvements are only considered “to the extent they are captured in the claims.” Berkheimer at 1369. Also see MPEP 2111.01. As written, the claims do not capture any improvement in accuracy for determining whether a driver is dozing. Therefore, such improvement is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant’s arguments appear to be primarily directed to the amended language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the amendments introduce a new interpretation, which necessitates a restructured ground of rejection from the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison.” Parameters for determining that the driver is dozing, or not dozing, are not provided. It is unclear how a comparison would produce such a determination. For example, upon comparing a current gripping information and gripping prediction information, it is unclear what parameters are being compared, and how such a comparison would derive the dozing state of the driver. Clarification is required. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim merely requires a comparison to be performed which would determine whether a driver is dozing. Therefore, for purposes of prior art examination, the limitation shall be interpreted by the Examiner as determining that the driver is dozing based on determining that the grip information is inappropriate for the vehicle behavior. Independent claims 9 and 10 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 13-16 inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they rely on and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A driver assistance system comprising:
a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature and acquire gripping information; and
a controller configured to receive gripping information from a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature to acquire the gripping information, receive behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and determine whether the driver is dozing,
wherein the controller is configured to: match the gripping information received from the gripping detection sensor with the behavior information of the vehicle, and store a result of the matching;
generate gripping prediction information by predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching to generate gripping prediction information; and
determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information, detected by the gripping detection sensor, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determine whether the driver is dozing, match the gripping information with the behavior information of the vehicle; and predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching to generate gripping prediction information; and determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information and the gripping prediction information, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle..
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “the controller configured to” and “gripping detection sensor”. That is, other than reciting “the controller configured to” and “gripping detection sensor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the controller configured to” and “gripping detection sensor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, mentally judging whether a driver is dozing based on observed grip information and data of vehicle behavior information and mentally comparing a current observed grip to a predicted grip. The mere nominal recitation of “the controller configured to” and “gripping detection sensor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature and acquire gripping information; and a controller configured to receive gripping information from a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature to acquire the gripping information, receive behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and store a result of the matching.
The detecting, acquiring, and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering grip and vehicle data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing and generating steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data storage and data output from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution data storage and output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9
Claim 9. A driver assistance system comprising:
a controller configured to receive gripping information from a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature to acquire the gripping information, receive behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and determine whether the driver is dozing,
wherein the controller is configured to: match the gripping information received from the gripping detection sensor with the behavior information of the vehicle, and store a result of the matching;
generate gripping prediction information by predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching to generate gripping prediction information; and
determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information, detected by the gripping detection sensor, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determine whether the driver is dozing, match the gripping information with the behavior information of the vehicle; and predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching to generate gripping prediction information; and determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information and the gripping prediction information, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle..
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “the controller configured to”. That is, other than reciting “the controller configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the controller configured to” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, mentally judging whether a driver is dozing based on observed grip information and data of vehicle behavior information and mentally comparing a current observed grip to a predicted grip. The mere nominal recitation of “the controller configured to” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a controller configured to receive gripping information from a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature to acquire the gripping information, receive behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and store a result of the matching.
The detecting, acquiring, and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering grip and vehicle data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing and generating steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data storage and data output from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution data storage and output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10. A driver assistance method comprising:
matching gripping information on a driver gripping a steering wheel according to behavior information of a vehicle; and
generating gripping prediction information based on a result of the matching, and comparing current gripping information with the gripping prediction information according to current behavior information of the vehicle and determining whether the driver is dozing,
wherein the matching includes detecting the driver gripping the steering wheel by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature to acquire the gripping information, acquiring the behavior information of the vehicle including any one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration,
matching the gripping information with the behavior information of the vehicle, and
store a result of the matching, and
the determining of whether the driver is dozing includes acquiring the current gripping information,
acquiring the current behavior information of the vehicle,
generating gripping prediction information by predicting gripping information with the current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching, and
determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information, detected by the gripping detection sensor, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of matching gripping information on a driver gripping a steering wheel according to behavior information of a vehicle; and determining whether the driver is dozing, matching the gripping information with the behavior information of the vehicle; and predicting gripping information according to the current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching, and determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, mentally matching an observed grip information to a vehicle behavior and judging whether a driver is dozing based on observed grip information and data of vehicle behavior information and mentally comparing a current observed grip to a predicted grip.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of generating gripping prediction information based on a result of the matching, and comparing current gripping information with the gripping prediction information according to current behavior information and determining whether the driver is dozing, wherein the matching includes detecting the driver gripping the steering wheel to acquire the gripping information, acquiring the behavior information of the vehicle, matching the gripping information according to the behavior information, and storing a result of the matching, and the determining of whether the driver is dozing includes acquiring the current gripping information, acquiring the current behavior information of the vehicle.
The detecting, acquiring, and received information steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering grip and vehicle data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of outputting information), and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11, and 13-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements, as demonstrated with respect to Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0166237), Sutherland (U.S. Patent Number 6,218,947), and Power (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0042856), that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 and 11-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 10.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0166237) in view of Power (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0042856).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a driver assistance system comprising:
a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel ... and acquire gripping information; and (Oh ¶ 65 discloses a grip pressure sensor 113 to sense the magnitude of pressure applied by the user when the user grips the steering wheel rim, wherein sensing a magnitude of pressure includes acquiring gripping information, such that the pressure sensor is “disposed in at least one area of the steering wheel rim,” see ¶ 66.)
a controller configured to receive the gripping information from the gripping detection sensor (Oh ¶ 197 discloses that the steering input apparatus 100 may output data to the controller 770, the data including a grip pressure detected by grip pressure sensor 113, see ¶ 98), receive behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration, (Oh ¶ 163 discloses a sensing unit 760 [i.e., behavior detection device] that senses a signal [i.e., acquiring behavior information] related to traveling of the vehicle 700. The processor 170 receives information from sensing unit 760, and the controller 100 receives information from steering apparatus 100 which contains processor 170, wherein the sensing unit 760 acquires signals including “an angle by which the steering wheel is rotated [i.e., a steering angle],” see ¶ 164. Also see Fig. 2 and 4.), and ...
wherein the controller is configured to: match the gripping information received from the gripping detection sensor with the behavior information of the vehicle, and (Oh ¶ 46 discloses outputting an indication of a recommended grip position for a driving situation and detecting whether or not the user’s grip is appropriate [i.e., matched] for a curvature of a road on which the vehicle is travelling [i.e., behavior information], wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to behavior information], see ¶ 102.)
store a result of the matching; (Oh ¶ 68 discloses “The grip pressure sensor 113 may sense the grip pressure of the user in order to store a reference pressure. For example, when a grip pressure reference setting mode is set, the grip pressure sensor 113 may sense the grip pressure of the user. In this case, the sensed grip pressure may become a reference pressure.”)
generate gripping prediction information by predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on the result of the matching, and (Oh ¶¶ 250-251 discloses sensing a dangerous situation, such as predicting a collision with a pedestrian, wherein the dangerous situation is sensed “without a proper grip [i.e., result of matching] according to the grip guide information [i.e., area prediction information and position prediction information],” wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to received current behavior], see ¶¶ 102 and 163. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sensing that a grip is not proper is a result of matching a current grip to a proper grip for a predicted dangerous situation. One having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that a predicted dangerous situation is one that occurs in the future and therefore the proper grip for the situation would be gripping prediction information.)
determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information, detected by the gripping detection sensor, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate. the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle (Oh ¶ 85 discloses determining, by processor 170, “whether the grip position is improper for the driving situation [i.e., gripping prediction information], based on the grip position information received from the grip position sensor 111 [i.e., current gripping information],” such as “If grip of the first hand is sensed in an improper region of the steering wheel rim, and grip of the second hand is not sensed when the vehicle 700 is positioned in a curve entry section,” see ¶ 89, wherein the proper grip position for a curved road having regions “to be gripped by the first hand and the second hand,” see ¶ 13. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining that a grip is improper for a driving situation as a vehicle enters a curved road involves comparing the current grip to the proper predicted grip for the upcoming curved road. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining whether the driver is dozing is complete when the comparison is performed. Accordingly, because the comparison is performed when the grip is determined to be improper, it is determined whether the driver is dozing.)
Oh does not expressly disclose:
[detect a driver gripping the steering wheel] by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature
However, Sutherland discloses:
[detect a driver gripping the steering wheel] by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature (Sutherland Col. 4 Lines 20-39 discloses that “capacitance of the second plate 22 is increased by a driver's fingertips touching the rear of the steering wheel rim 14”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined detecting a driver gripping the steering wheel of Oh with performing the detection by measuring a capacitance, as disclosed by Sutherland, with reasonable expectation of success, so that no particular grip pressure is required nor is specific finger position necessary to form a circuit (Sutherland Col. 5 Lines 41-43), which would be more convenient for detecting grip (see MPEP 2143.01(G)), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Additionally, Power discloses:
determine whether the driver is dozing [based on comparing grip information] (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by the combination of Oh and Sutherland with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, because the combination would ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance system of claim 1, wherein the gripping information includes contact area information and contact position information between a hand of the driver and the steering wheel as the driver grips the steering wheel (Oh in at least ¶¶ 123 and 162), and the controller is configured to:
match the area information and the position information according to the behavior information; and (Oh ¶ 123 discloses determining “whether or not the grip position [i.e., position information] is proper [i.e., matched] for the driving situation based on the received grip position information, wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to behavior information], see ¶ 102. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining that a grip position is proper includes matching a grip position to a “proper grip in a region of the steering wheel rim,” also see ¶ 278.)
generate area prediction information and position prediction information according to the received current behavior information based on a result of the matching, and (Oh ¶¶ 250-251 discloses sensing a dangerous situation, such as predicting a collision with a pedestrian, wherein the dangerous situation is sensed “without a proper grip according to the grip guide information [i.e., area prediction information and position prediction information],” wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to received current behavior], see ¶¶ 102 and 163.)
compare current area information and current position information with the area prediction information and the position prediction information according to the current behavior information, respectively ... (Oh ¶ 13 discloses determining that “a grip of a first hand of a user is sensed in a region of the steering wheel rim that is improper for the driving situation” corresponding to the vehicle travelling in an entry section of a curved road, such that the proper grip position for a curved road having regions “to be gripped by the first hand and the second hand.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining that a grip is improper for a driving situation as a vehicle enters a curved road requires comparing current grip area and hand position to the expected grip area and hand position.)
Oh in combination with Sutherland does not expressly disclose:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing
However, Power discloses:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by Oh with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance system of claim 2, wherein the gripping information further includes contact shape information between the hand of the driver and the steering wheel as the driver grips the steering wheel (Oh in at least ¶¶ 123 and 162), and the controller is configured to:
further match the shape information according to the behavior information; and (Oh ¶ 168 discloses “biometric recognition information sensing unit may acquire hand shape information,” such that a “reference area may be determined based on an area of the steering wheel which contacts the palm or fingers of an adult when the adult grips the steering rim,” see ¶ 79.)
further generate shape prediction information according to the received behavior information based on a result of the matching, and (Oh ¶¶ 278-279 discloses “if only fingers of the left hand contact the steering wheel rim (1510)” or “If only the palm of the left hand contacts the steering wheel rim (1520), the processor 170 may determine that the grip area is less than or equal to a reference area [i.e., matching information]. In this case, the processor 170 may output guide information 1521 for guiding a proper grip in a region of the steering wheel rim in which the grip of the left hand is required [i.e., prediction information],” such that detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, wherein situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102.)
further compare current shape information with the shape prediction information according to the current behavior information ... (Oh ¶¶ 278-279 discloses determining that a grip area is less than or equal to a reference area based on the palm or fingers of a user’s hand, thereby having compared a current shape of the hand to what is required [i.e., predicted] to determine whether the grip is “appropriate.” Also see ¶ 102.)
Oh in combination with Sutherland does not expressly disclose:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing
However, Power discloses:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by Oh with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance system of claim 2, wherein the gripping information further includes information on pressure applied to the steering wheel as the driver grips the steering wheel (Oh in at least ¶¶ 123 and 162), and the controller is configured to:
further match the pressure information according to the behavior information, and (Oh ¶ 95 discloses guiding a user to properly grip a steering wheel “according to the driving situation” based on a “grip pressure sensed through the grip pressure sensor 113 [being] less than or equal to the reference pressure [i.e., matched] stored in memory.”)
further generate pressure prediction information according to the received behavior information based on a result of the matching, and (Oh ¶ 123 discloses determining “whether or not the grip pressure is improper [i.e., pressure prediction information] for the driving situation based on the received grip pressure information,” wherein the driving situation includes a dangerous situation, such as predicting a collision with a pedestrian. The driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to behavior information], see ¶ 102.)
further compare current pressure information with the pressure prediction information according to the current behavior information ... (Oh ¶ 123 discloses determining “whether or not the grip pressure is improper for the driving situation based on the received grip pressure information.”)
Oh does not expressly disclose:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing
However, Power discloses:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by Oh with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance system of claim 1, wherein the controller (Oh in at least ¶ 197) is configured to:
match the gripping information according to the behavior information for each piece of driver identification information received from a driver identification device of the vehicle; (Oh ¶ 168 discloses a biometric identification information sensing unit [i.e., a driver identification device], including a biometric recognition information sensing unit may acquire hand shape information [i.e., a piece driver identification information], such that detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, wherein situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “each” piece of information would include only one piece of information.)
generate gripping prediction information according to the received current behavior information based on a result of the matching for each piece of driver identification information; and (Oh ¶ 278 discloses outputting guide information 1511 for guiding a proper grip [i.e., generate gripping prediction information] if only fingers of a hand are contacting the steering wheel and it is determined that the grip area is less than or equal to a reference area [i.e., matching each piece of driver identification information], wherein detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, situation information being generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. Also see ¶ 73 disclosing acquiring [i.e., receiving] sensor information from a “vehicle speed sensor.”)
compare the current gripping information with the gripping prediction information according to the current behavior information generated based on a result of the matching for each piece of driver identification information ... (Oh ¶ 278 discloses determining that a grip area [i.e., current gripping information] is less than or equal to a reference area [i.e., gripping prediction information] if only fingers are contacting the steering wheel rim, and “guiding a proper grip,” thereby performing a comparison to determine whether or not a grip is proper based on matching to the user hand shape and the required grip. Detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, situation information being generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102.)
Oh does not expressly disclose:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing.
However, Power discloses:
... to determine whether the driver is dozing (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by Oh with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance system of claim 1, wherein:
the controller outputs an alert to the driver through a driver alert device provided in the vehicle ... (Oh ¶ 116 discloses that “If a proper grip according to the grip guide information is not sensed, the processor 170 may output an alarm through the alarm unit 155,” wherein alarm unit 155 is a component of apparatus 100 which is onboard vehicle 700, see Fig. 2 and 4.)
Oh does not expressly disclose:
... when the driver's dozing is detected.
However, Power discloses:
... when the driver's dozing is detected. (Power ¶ 27 discloses “shaking a dozing driver from his about to be sleeping state. This could be an audio alarm, a vibratory means, or the like which would startle the driver just enough to bring him back from the brink of sleep,” wherein the alarm is triggered based on the grip pressure of the steering wheel, also see ¶ 28.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the alarm of Oh with outputting the alert when a driver’s dozing is detected, as disclosed in Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to prevent the user from falling asleep while driving a vehicle (Power ¶ 22), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses a driver assistance system comprising:
a controller configured to receive gripping information from a gripping detection sensor provided on a steering wheel of a vehicle and (Oh ¶ 197 discloses that the steering input apparatus 100 may output data to the controller 770, the data including a grip pressure detected by grip pressure sensor 113, see ¶ 98) configured to detect a driver gripping the steering wheel to acquire the gripping information, (Oh ¶ 65 discloses a grip pressure sensor 113 to sense the magnitude of pressure applied by the user when the user grips the steering wheel rim, wherein sensing a magnitude of pressure includes acquiring gripping information, such that the pressure sensor is “disposed in at least one area of the steering wheel rim,” see ¶ 66)
receive behavior information of the vehicle including any one of a vehicle speed, a steering angle, a yaw rate, a lateral acceleration, and a longitudinal acceleration, and ... (Oh ¶ 163 discloses a sensing unit 760 [i.e., behavior detection device] that senses a signal [i.e., acquiring behavior information] related to traveling of the vehicle 700. The processor 170 receives information from sensing unit 760, and the controller 100 receives information from steering apparatus 100 which contains processor 170, wherein the sensing unit 760 acquires signals including “an angle by which the steering wheel is rotated [i.e., a steering angle],” see ¶ 164. Also see Fig. 2 and 4.),
wherein the controller is configured to: match the gripping information received from the gripping detection sensor with the behavior information of the vehicle, and (Oh ¶ 46 discloses outputting an indication of a recommended grip position for a driving situation and detecting whether or not the user’s grip is appropriate [i.e., matched] for a curvature of a road on which the vehicle is travelling, wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to behavior information], see ¶ 102.)
store a result of the matching; (Oh ¶ 68 discloses “The grip pressure sensor 113 may sense the grip pressure of the user in order to store a reference pressure. For example, when a grip pressure reference setting mode is set, the grip pressure sensor 113 may sense the grip pressure of the user. In this case, the sensed grip pressure may become a reference pressure.”)
generate gripping prediction information by predicting gripping information according to current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching, and (Oh ¶¶ 250-251 discloses sensing a dangerous situation, such as predicting a collision with a pedestrian, wherein the dangerous situation is sensed “without a proper grip [i.e., result of matching] according to the grip guide information [i.e., area prediction information and position prediction information],” wherein driving situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., according to received current behavior], see ¶¶ 102 and 163. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sensing that a grip is not proper is a result of matching a current grip to a proper grip for a predicted dangerous situation. One having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that a predicted dangerous situation is one that occurs in the future and therefore the proper grip for the situation would be a predicted grip information.)
determine whether the driver is dozing based on comparison between current gripping information, detected by the gripping detection sensor, and the gripping prediction information generated based on the current behavior information of the vehicle including at least one of the vehicle speed, the steering angle, the yaw rate, the lateral acceleration, and the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle. (Oh ¶ 85 discloses determining, by processor 170, “whether the grip position is improper for the driving situation [i.e., gripping prediction information], based on the grip position information received from the grip position sensor 111 [i.e., current gripping information],” such as “If grip of the first hand is sensed in an improper region of the steering wheel rim, and grip of the second hand is not sensed when the vehicle 700 is positioned in a curve entry section,” see ¶ 89, wherein the proper grip position for a curved road having regions “to be gripped by the first hand and the second hand,” see ¶ 13. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that determining that a grip is improper for a driving situation as a vehicle enters a curved road involves comparing the current grip to the proper predicted grip for the upcoming curved road. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining whether the driver is dozing is complete when the comparison is performed. Accordingly, because the comparison is performed when the grip is determined to be improper, it is determined whether the driver is dozing.)
Oh does not expressly disclose:
[detect a driver gripping the steering wheel] by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature
However, Sutherland discloses:
[detect a driver gripping the steering wheel] by measuring any one of capacitance, a change in resistance, and a change in temperature (Sutherland Col. 4 Lines 20-39 discloses that “capacitance of the second plate 22 is increased by a driver's fingertips touching the rear of the steering wheel rim 14”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined detecting a driver gripping the steering wheel of Oh with performing the detection by measuring a capacitance, as disclosed by Sutherland, with reasonable expectation of success, so that no particular grip pressure is required nor is specific finger position necessary to form a circuit (Sutherland Col. 5 Lines 41-43), which would be more convenient for detecting grip (see MPEP 2143.01(G)), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Additionally, Power discloses:
determine whether the driver is dozing, (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
determine whether the driver is dozing. (Power ¶ 28)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by the combination of Oh and Sutherland with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance method of claim 10, wherein: the matching further includes:
receiving driver identification information from a driver identification device of the vehicle; and (Oh ¶ 168 discloses a biometric identification information sensing unit [i.e., a driver identification device], including a biometric recognition information sensing unit may acquire [i.e., receive] hand shape information [i.e., a piece driver identification information].)
the matching includes matching the gripping information according to the behavior information of the vehicle for each piece of driver identification information. (Oh ¶ 168 discloses acquiring hand shape information [i.e., a piece driver identification information], such that detecting appropriate [i.e., matched] grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, wherein situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “each” piece of information would include only one piece of information.)
Regarding claim 14, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the driver assistance method of claim 13, wherein:
the determining of whether the driver is dozing includes receiving driver identification information from the driver identification device of the vehicle; (Oh ¶ 168 discloses a biometric recognition information sensing unit to acquire [i.e., receive] hand shape information [i.e., driver identification information], such that detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, wherein situation information is generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “each” piece of information would include only one piece of information.)
the generating of the gripping prediction information includes generating gripping prediction information according to the received current behavior information of the vehicle based on a result of the matching for each piece of driver identification information; and (Oh ¶ 278 discloses outputting guide information 1511 for guiding a proper grip [i.e., generate gripping prediction information] if only fingers of a hand are contacting the steering wheel and it is determined that the grip area is less than or equal to a reference area [i.e., matching each piece of driver identification information], wherein detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, situation information being generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. Also see ¶ 73 disclosing acquiring [i.e., receiving] sensor information from a “vehicle speed sensor.”)
the determining of whether the driver is dozing includes comparing the current gripping information with the gripping prediction information according to the behavior information of the vehicle generated based on a result of the matching for each piece of driver identification information to determine whether the driver is dozing. (Oh ¶ 278 discloses determining that a grip area [i.e., current gripping information] is less than or equal to a reference area [i.e., gripping prediction information] if only fingers are contacting the steering wheel rim, and “guiding a proper grip,” thereby performing a comparison to determine whether or not a grip is proper based on matching to the user hand shape and the required grip. Detecting appropriate grip is based on a driving situation, see ¶ 45, situation information being generated based on vehicle speed [i.e., behavior information], see ¶ 102. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining whether the driver is dozing is complete when the comparison is performed. Accordingly, because the comparison is performed when the grip is determined to be improper, it is determined whether the driver is dozing.)
Additionally, Power discloses:
determining whether the driver is dozing (Power ¶ 28 discloses that “when there is no sensor above a predetermined pressure as would happen when letting go with both hands or the reduced grip on both hands when beginning to dose [i.e., doze],” triggering an alarm, thereby having determined that the driver is dozing.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the driver attentiveness disclosed by Oh with determining whether a driver is dozing, as disclosed by Power, with reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the driver does not drive off the road (Power ¶ 27) because accidents that occur when the driver falls asleep at the wheel often have a high percentage of fatality (Power ¶ 5), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0166237) in view of Sutherland (U.S. Patent Number 6,218,947) and Power (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2008/0042856), further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0170326).
Regarding claim 8, Oh in combination with Sutherland and Power does not expressly disclose the driver assistance system of claim 1, wherein:
the controller learns and matches the gripping information according to a machine learning algorithm when matching the gripping information according to the behavior information of the vehicle.
However, Wang discloses:
the controller learns and matches the gripping information according to a machine learning algorithm when matching the gripping information according to the behavior information of the vehicle. (Wang ¶ 39 discloses that a “threshold gripping force is learned” such that “when the operator grips the steering wheel and generates an “abnormal” or increased pressure signal,” it indicates that “vehicle braking should be applied.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that braking involves controlling the vehicle speed which is behavior information. Also see ¶ 32.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Oh and Power to incorporate a machine learning algorithm when learning and matching gripping information to vehicle behavior, as disclosed by Wang, with reasonable expectation of success, to improve the recognition accuracy of the vehicle sensing system including hazard detection (Wang ¶ 28), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662