DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/141,604 filed on 05/01/2023, and the amendments and arguments filed on 05/13/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2023 and 09/04/2024
have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 103 rejection
previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 03/23/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejections(s)
of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the
rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC
103 as necessitated by amendment as being unpatentable over Hanna (US 20180086339 A1) in view of Cordell (US 20210078408 A1) further in view of Arar (US 20220121867 A1) and further in view of Nave (US10106156 B1).
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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna (US 20180086339 A1) in view of Cordell (US 20210078408 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hanna discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a vehicle, cause the one or more processors to: (Hanna Paragraph 0027: “In these embodiments, the computing device 100 may store and execute firmware or other executable instructions that, when executed, direct the one or more processing units 121 to simultaneously execute instructions or to simultaneously execute instructions on a single piece of data.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0028: “The processing cores of the processing unit 121 may in some embodiments access available memory as a global address space, or in other embodiments, memory within the computing device 100 can be segmented and assigned to a particular core within the processing unit 121.”) receive a reading from a forward-facing sensor of the vehicle indicating a detected object forward of the vehicle; (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
395
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
perform object recognition of the detected object by: (Hanna Paragraph 0047: “An activation engine in communication with the first sensor and the second sensor can determine a proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position of the potential obstacle (205). The activation engine can control, in response to the determined proximity, an operation of the ADAS mechanism/system for responding to the potential obstacle, and/or may provide an alert to at least: the user regarding the potential obstacle, or the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0048: “The first sensor may include a sensing, detecting and/or measurement device, that may be based on one or more of imaging (e.g., computer vision, infra-red, object recognition), LiDAR, radar, audio/ultrasound, sonar, etc. The potential obstacle may include a potential obstacle to the vehicle and/or a user of the vehicle. The potential obstacle may include or refer to a road user such as a person, animal and/or other vehicle. The potential obstacle may include any object, stationary or otherwise, and in some embodiments can include an object smaller than or of height below a certain threshold, and/or partially obscured from the first sensor due to reduced visibility or contrast from fog, smoke, or the like, and/or due to light foliage, low light and/or limited field of view of the first sensor.”) receiving a reading from another sensor of the vehicle indicating a detected driver alertness problem; (Hanna Paragraph 0050: “Referring now to 203, and in some embodiments, a second sensor can determine a gaze angle of a user of the vehicle. The second sensor may comprise any type or form of sensor or device described above in connection with the first sensor. The second sensor can determine a gaze angle of the user at the same time or substantially the same time as the determination of the location of the potential obstacle, e.g., so that the gaze angle and location can be registered or compared contemporaneously.”) (Note: Gaze can determine alertness of a driver) […] and in response to classifying the detected object as a hazardous target cause the collision avoidance system to automatically take action to attempt to avoid the collision. (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle. Within the coordinate system of camera A, a vulnerable user V (e.g., a potential obstacle) can be detected by the ADAS system at a particular range and angle with respect to the ADAS camera. In ADAS systems, there may be uncertainty regarding the determination that an obstacle is a hazard or not. The likelihood or uncertainty can depend on many factors, including the resolution of the sensor, the movement of the obstacle and/or many other factors. This can be an issue particularly when potential obstacles are smaller and when there is less information for ADAS systems to determine its presence with certainty. In one embodiment, the present solution may relate to mitigating this uncertainty.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “For example, if the ADAS system detected a potential obstacle with a particular probability, P_ADAS_DETECTION, and the driver was looking away from the potential obstacle such that DIFF is large, then the probability of actuation P_ACTUATION can be almost equal to the probability of ADAS detection, P_ADAS_DETECTION. In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system. In addition or alternatively, the system may provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle so that the user themselves can apply the brakes, and/or provide an alert to the potential obstacle (which can be a road user such as a person or animal) to be aware of the vehicle and can take action to distance itself from the vehicle or otherwise improve safety. On the other hand, for the same value of P_ADAS_DETECTION, if the user is gazing at the potential obstacle such that the angular distance between their gaze direction and the direction of the object provided by the ADAS system is small or close to zero, then from the formula in this particular embodiment, P_ACTUATION would be near to zero. In this case, because the driver has been detected to be looking at the potential obstacle, then it is more likely that the driver himself/herself would apply braking if it was a real potential obstacle, and therefore in the presence of the same uncertainty of the ADAS system, in this case the ADAS system would not apply the brakes automatically, and the system may not provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0056: “As another non-limiting example, the activation engine can determine that the determined proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position is above a predefined threshold (e.g., the user may be unaware of or not fully aware of the potential obstacle), and may determine or decide to maintain or decrease a threshold for the ADAS to initiate collision avoidance, and/or may reduce the threshold for the activation engine to provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle (and/or to the potential obstacle), making the alert more likely to be announced.”) (Note: The object is determined to be hazardous when the users gaze does not match the location of the obstacle therefore determining the user is not aware and the obstacle is hazardous and vice versa if the gaze does match the location of the obstacle.)
Hanna does not disclose […] in response to the detected driver awareness problem, lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected objects as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem;
However, Cordell does teach […] in response to the detected driver awareness problem, lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “Another example of content that may be provided to the user in response to the user not looking at the deer 218 may be an audible warning that an object is in the road.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “In another arrangement, if the user fails to respond, any number of safety features of the automobile 102 may be activated. For example, a safety system (not shown) of the automobile 102 may automatically apply the brakes or commandeer the steering of the automobile 102 to prevent hitting an object.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0087: “As also noted earlier, some objects may be considered hazardous objects because they may present some danger (including potential danger) to the user or the automobile 102, such as an object near or in the road ahead of the automobile 102. These detected objects may be identified or unidentified objects. In one embodiment, the system can determine the probability of an impact or other danger, based on factors like velocity, proximity of the object to the automobile 102, lighting or weather conditions, and driving ability of the driver. (At least some of this data may be provided by one or more of the accessories 108a, 108b, 108c of the automobile 102.) If the object is identified, particularly with a high degree of confidence, this information may also be considered when determining such probability.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0088: “The average matching scores for hazardous objects may be considered as part of determining the impact or danger probability. For example, if an average matching score reveals that the user is unaware of the hazardous object, content in the form of a warning may be presented to the user. Examples of these warnings are described above and below. In this scenario, a lower average matching score may be more important in determining whether to present content to the user. If the system determines that the user appears to be aware of the hazardous object, no warning may be generated.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0098: “At decision block 318, a determination is made whether an object not being looked at by the user is a hazardous object or an informational sign. For example, if the user is looking at a side mirror but a pedestrian is directly in front of the automobile, then the object (i.e., the pedestrian) may be determined to be a threat to the automobile and thus, a hazardous object. If the user is looking at something in the back seat of the automobile as the automobile is approaching a speed-limit sign, the object (i.e., the speed-limit sign) may be determined to be an informational sign, which may or may not be a hazardous object.”) classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; (Cordell Paragraph 0076: “Once the objects in the image are identified, they can be labeled and confidence factors, indicating the probability of the accuracy of the identification, may be assigned to them. Objects tagged with confidence factors below a certain threshold may be discarded, at least for that particular image. In other cases, objects with confidence factors below the threshold or that are otherwise unidentifiable may still be considered as part of the correlation with the user's attention direction. For example, the system may be unable to accurately identify an object located in the middle of the road, which may present a hazardous condition. As such, the system may avoid discarding the unidentified object to ensure the user is cognizant of it. (An object may be labeled as an unidentified object if its confidence factor is below the threshold.) Using the relevant reference system, a relative position of one or more of the objects (identified or unidentified) may be estimated.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna to include […] in response to the detected driver awareness problem, lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected objects as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; taught by Cordell. This would have been for the benefit to provide a warning that can be presented to the driver to draw the driver’s attention to the hazardous object or informational sign in order to give context to a user using a head unit in an automobile. [Cordell Paragraph 0002 and 0004]
Regarding claim 3, Hanna discloses The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises a collision alert system. (Hanna Paragraph 0055: “In some embodiments, the ADAS mechanism implemented in the present solution may include (vehicle user or road user) alerting functionality in the ADAS mechanism's collision avoidance operations. In this case, the system may accordingly adjust respective threshold(s) for triggering or sending alert(s) to the user and/or the road user (potential obstacle).”)
Regarding claim 5, Hanna discloses The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the another sensor further comprises a driver-facing sensor. (Hanna Paragraph 0039: “At substantially the same time, an eye tracking camera E (e.g., a second sensor) mounted in the vehicle facing the driver can detect a gaze angle of the driver D.”)
Regarding claim 6, Hanna discloses The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises a driver-facing camera. (Hanna Paragraph 0039: “At substantially the same time, an eye tracking camera E (e.g., a second sensor) mounted in the vehicle facing the driver can detect a gaze angle of the driver D.”)
Regarding claim 10, Hanna discloses A method comprising: performing in one or more processors in a vehicle: (Hanna Paragraph 0004: “A method comprising: In some aspects, this disclosure is directed a method for operating or controlling an ADAS mechanism/system”) receiving a reading from a forward-facing sensor of the vehicle indicating a detected object forward of the vehicle; (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
395
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
perform object recognition of the detected object by: (Hanna Paragraph 0047: “An activation engine in communication with the first sensor and the second sensor can determine a proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position of the potential obstacle (205). The activation engine can control, in response to the determined proximity, an operation of the ADAS mechanism/system for responding to the potential obstacle, and/or may provide an alert to at least: the user regarding the potential obstacle, or the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0048: “The first sensor may include a sensing, detecting and/or measurement device, that may be based on one or more of imaging (e.g., computer vision, infra-red, object recognition), LiDAR, radar, audio/ultrasound, sonar, etc. The potential obstacle may include a potential obstacle to the vehicle and/or a user of the vehicle. The potential obstacle may include or refer to a road user such as a person, animal and/or other vehicle. The potential obstacle may include any object, stationary or otherwise, and in some embodiments can include an object smaller than or of height below a certain threshold, and/or partially obscured from the first sensor due to reduced visibility or contrast from fog, smoke, or the like, and/or due to light foliage, low light and/or limited field of view of the first sensor.”) determining whether a driver of the vehicle is in a first awareness state or a second wares ness state based on a reading from a driver-facing sensor and/or a reading from a vehicle sensor, wherein the driver is more aware in the first awareness stat than in the second awareness state; (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “For example, if the ADAS system detected a potential obstacle with a particular probability, P_ADAS_DETECTION, and the driver was looking away from the potential obstacle such that DIFF is large, then the probability of actuation P_ACTUATION can be almost equal to the probability of ADAS detection, P_ADAS_DETECTION. In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system. In addition or alternatively, the system may provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle so that the user themselves can apply the brakes, and/or provide an alert to the potential obstacle (which can be a road user such as a person or animal) to be aware of the vehicle and can take action to distance itself from the vehicle or otherwise improve safety. On the other hand, for the same value of P_ADAS_DETECTION, if the user is gazing at the potential obstacle such that the angular distance between their gaze direction and the direction of the object provided by the ADAS system is small or close to zero, then from the formula in this particular embodiment, P_ACTUATION would be near to zero. In this case, because the driver has been detected to be looking at the potential obstacle, then it is more likely that the driver himself/herself would apply braking if it was a real potential obstacle, and therefore in the presence of the same uncertainty of the ADAS system, in this case the ADAS system would not apply the brakes automatically, and the system may not provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0050: “Referring now to 203, and in some embodiments, a second sensor can determine a gaze angle of a user of the vehicle. The second sensor may comprise any type or form of sensor or device described above in connection with the first sensor. The second sensor can determine a gaze angle of the user at the same time or substantially the same time as the determination of the location of the potential obstacle, e.g., so that the gaze angle and location can be registered or compared contemporaneously.”) (Note: Gaze can determine alertness of a driver) […] and in response to classifying the detected object as a hazardous target causing the driver assistance system to automatically take action to attempt to avoid the collision. (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle. Within the coordinate system of camera A, a vulnerable user V (e.g., a potential obstacle) can be detected by the ADAS system at a particular range and angle with respect to the ADAS camera. In ADAS systems, there may be uncertainty regarding the determination that an obstacle is a hazard or not. The likelihood or uncertainty can depend on many factors, including the resolution of the sensor, the movement of the obstacle and/or many other factors. This can be an issue particularly when potential obstacles are smaller and when there is less information for ADAS systems to determine its presence with certainty. In one embodiment, the present solution may relate to mitigating this uncertainty.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “For example, if the ADAS system detected a potential obstacle with a particular probability, P_ADAS_DETECTION, and the driver was looking away from the potential obstacle such that DIFF is large, then the probability of actuation P_ACTUATION can be almost equal to the probability of ADAS detection, P_ADAS_DETECTION. In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system. In addition or alternatively, the system may provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle so that the user themselves can apply the brakes, and/or provide an alert to the potential obstacle (which can be a road user such as a person or animal) to be aware of the vehicle and can take action to distance itself from the vehicle or otherwise improve safety. On the other hand, for the same value of P_ADAS_DETECTION, if the user is gazing at the potential obstacle such that the angular distance between their gaze direction and the direction of the object provided by the ADAS system is small or close to zero, then from the formula in this particular embodiment, P_ACTUATION would be near to zero. In this case, because the driver has been detected to be looking at the potential obstacle, then it is more likely that the driver himself/herself would apply braking if it was a real potential obstacle, and therefore in the presence of the same uncertainty of the ADAS system, in this case the ADAS system would not apply the brakes automatically, and the system may not provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0056: “As another non-limiting example, the activation engine can determine that the determined proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position is above a predefined threshold (e.g., the user may be unaware of or not fully aware of the potential obstacle), and may determine or decide to maintain or decrease a threshold for the ADAS to initiate collision avoidance, and/or may reduce the threshold for the activation engine to provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle (and/or to the potential obstacle), making the alert more likely to be announced.”) (Note: The object is determined to be hazardous when the users gaze does not match the location of the obstacle therefore determining the user is not aware and the obstacle is hazardous and vice versa if the gaze does match the location of the obstacle.)
Hanna does not disclose […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a driver assistance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on whether the driver is in the first awareness state or the second awareness state; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem;
However, Cordell does teach […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a driver assistance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on whether the driver is in the first awareness state or the second awareness state; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “Another example of content that may be provided to the user in response to the user not looking at the deer 218 may be an audible warning that an object is in the road.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “In another arrangement, if the user fails to respond, any number of safety features of the automobile 102 may be activated. For example, a safety system (not shown) of the automobile 102 may automatically apply the brakes or commandeer the steering of the automobile 102 to prevent hitting an object.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0087: “As also noted earlier, some objects may be considered hazardous objects because they may present some danger (including potential danger) to the user or the automobile 102, such as an object near or in the road ahead of the automobile 102. These detected objects may be identified or unidentified objects. In one embodiment, the system can determine the probability of an impact or other danger, based on factors like velocity, proximity of the object to the automobile 102, lighting or weather conditions, and driving ability of the driver. (At least some of this data may be provided by one or more of the accessories 108a, 108b, 108c of the automobile 102.) If the object is identified, particularly with a high degree of confidence, this information may also be considered when determining such probability.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0088: “The average matching scores for hazardous objects may be considered as part of determining the impact or danger probability. For example, if an average matching score reveals that the user is unaware of the hazardous object, content in the form of a warning may be presented to the user. Examples of these warnings are described above and below. In this scenario, a lower average matching score may be more important in determining whether to present content to the user. If the system determines that the user appears to be aware of the hazardous object, no warning may be generated.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0098: “At decision block 318, a determination is made whether an object not being looked at by the user is a hazardous object or an informational sign. For example, if the user is looking at a side mirror but a pedestrian is directly in front of the automobile, then the object (i.e., the pedestrian) may be determined to be a threat to the automobile and thus, a hazardous object. If the user is looking at something in the back seat of the automobile as the automobile is approaching a speed-limit sign, the object (i.e., the speed-limit sign) may be determined to be an informational sign, which may or may not be a hazardous object.”) classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; (Cordell Paragraph 0076: “Once the objects in the image are identified, they can be labeled and confidence factors, indicating the probability of the accuracy of the identification, may be assigned to them. Objects tagged with confidence factors below a certain threshold may be discarded, at least for that particular image. In other cases, objects with confidence factors below the threshold or that are otherwise unidentifiable may still be considered as part of the correlation with the user's attention direction. For example, the system may be unable to accurately identify an object located in the middle of the road, which may present a hazardous condition. As such, the system may avoid discarding the unidentified object to ensure the user is cognizant of it. (An object may be labeled as an unidentified object if its confidence factor is below the threshold.) Using the relevant reference system, a relative position of one or more of the objects (identified or unidentified) may be estimated.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna to include […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a driver assistance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on whether the driver is in the first awareness state or the second awareness state; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; taught by Cordell. This would have been for the benefit to provide a warning that can be presented to the driver to draw the driver’s attention to the hazardous object or informational sign in order to give context to a user using a head unit in an automobile. [Cordell Paragraph 0002 and 0004]
Regarding claim 11, Hanna discloses The method of Claim 10, wherein the driver assistance system further comprises an autonomous braking system. (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system.”)
Regarding claim 13, Hanna discloses The method of Claim 10, wherein the driver assistance system further comprises a collision alert system. (Hanna Paragraph 0055: “In some embodiments, the ADAS mechanism implemented in the present solution may include (vehicle user or road user) alerting functionality in the ADAS mechanism's collision avoidance operations. In this case, the system may accordingly adjust respective threshold(s) for triggering or sending alert(s) to the user and/or the road user (potential obstacle).”)
Regarding claim 14, Hanna discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises a driver-facing camera. (Hanna Paragraph 0039: “At substantially the same time, an eye tracking camera E (e.g., a second sensor) mounted in the vehicle facing the driver can detect a gaze angle of the driver D.”)
Regarding claim 17, Hanna discloses A vehicle safety system comprising: (Hanna Paragraph 0008: “In some aspects, this disclosure is directed to a system for operating an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) mechanism”) means for receiving a reading from a forward-facing sensor of the vehicle indicating a detected object forward of the vehicle; (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
395
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
means for performing object recognition of the detected object by: (Hanna Paragraph 0047: “An activation engine in communication with the first sensor and the second sensor can determine a proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position of the potential obstacle (205). The activation engine can control, in response to the determined proximity, an operation of the ADAS mechanism/system for responding to the potential obstacle, and/or may provide an alert to at least: the user regarding the potential obstacle, or the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0048: “The first sensor may include a sensing, detecting and/or measurement device, that may be based on one or more of imaging (e.g., computer vision, infra-red, object recognition), LiDAR, radar, audio/ultrasound, sonar, etc. The potential obstacle may include a potential obstacle to the vehicle and/or a user of the vehicle. The potential obstacle may include or refer to a road user such as a person, animal and/or other vehicle. The potential obstacle may include any object, stationary or otherwise, and in some embodiments can include an object smaller than or of height below a certain threshold, and/or partially obscured from the first sensor due to reduced visibility or contrast from fog, smoke, or the like, and/or due to light foliage, low light and/or limited field of view of the first sensor.”) receiving a reading from another sensor of the vehicle indicating a detected driver alertness problem; (Hanna Paragraph 0050: “Referring now to 203, and in some embodiments, a second sensor can determine a gaze angle of a user of the vehicle. The second sensor may comprise any type or form of sensor or device described above in connection with the first sensor. The second sensor can determine a gaze angle of the user at the same time or substantially the same time as the determination of the location of the potential obstacle, e.g., so that the gaze angle and location can be registered or compared contemporaneously.”) (Note: Gaze can determine alertness of a driver) […] and means for, in response to classifying the detected object as a hazardous target causing the collision avoidance system to automatically take action to attempt to avoid the collision. (Hanna Paragraph 0038: “FIG. 2A shows a top-view of a driver D sitting in a seat of a vehicle. In one embodiment of the system, a camera “A” (e.g., a first sensor) senses imagery from in front of the vehicle. Within the coordinate system of camera A, a vulnerable user V (e.g., a potential obstacle) can be detected by the ADAS system at a particular range and angle with respect to the ADAS camera. In ADAS systems, there may be uncertainty regarding the determination that an obstacle is a hazard or not. The likelihood or uncertainty can depend on many factors, including the resolution of the sensor, the movement of the obstacle and/or many other factors. This can be an issue particularly when potential obstacles are smaller and when there is less information for ADAS systems to determine its presence with certainty. In one embodiment, the present solution may relate to mitigating this uncertainty.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “For example, if the ADAS system detected a potential obstacle with a particular probability, P_ADAS_DETECTION, and the driver was looking away from the potential obstacle such that DIFF is large, then the probability of actuation P_ACTUATION can be almost equal to the probability of ADAS detection, P_ADAS_DETECTION. In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system. In addition or alternatively, the system may provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle so that the user themselves can apply the brakes, and/or provide an alert to the potential obstacle (which can be a road user such as a person or animal) to be aware of the vehicle and can take action to distance itself from the vehicle or otherwise improve safety. On the other hand, for the same value of P_ADAS_DETECTION, if the user is gazing at the potential obstacle such that the angular distance between their gaze direction and the direction of the object provided by the ADAS system is small or close to zero, then from the formula in this particular embodiment, P_ACTUATION would be near to zero. In this case, because the driver has been detected to be looking at the potential obstacle, then it is more likely that the driver himself/herself would apply braking if it was a real potential obstacle, and therefore in the presence of the same uncertainty of the ADAS system, in this case the ADAS system would not apply the brakes automatically, and the system may not provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle.”) (Hanna Paragraph 0056: “As another non-limiting example, the activation engine can determine that the determined proximity of the gaze angle of the user to the determined position is above a predefined threshold (e.g., the user may be unaware of or not fully aware of the potential obstacle), and may determine or decide to maintain or decrease a threshold for the ADAS to initiate collision avoidance, and/or may reduce the threshold for the activation engine to provide an alert to the user regarding the potential obstacle (and/or to the potential obstacle), making the alert more likely to be announced.”) (Note: The object is determined to be hazardous when the users gaze does not match the location of the obstacle therefore determining the user is not aware and the obstacle is hazardous and vice versa if the gaze does match the location of the obstacle.)
Hanna does not disclose […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem;
However, Cordell does teach […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “Another example of content that may be provided to the user in response to the user not looking at the deer 218 may be an audible warning that an object is in the road.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0035: “In another arrangement, if the user fails to respond, any number of safety features of the automobile 102 may be activated. For example, a safety system (not shown) of the automobile 102 may automatically apply the brakes or commandeer the steering of the automobile 102 to prevent hitting an object.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0087: “As also noted earlier, some objects may be considered hazardous objects because they may present some danger (including potential danger) to the user or the automobile 102, such as an object near or in the road ahead of the automobile 102. These detected objects may be identified or unidentified objects. In one embodiment, the system can determine the probability of an impact or other danger, based on factors like velocity, proximity of the object to the automobile 102, lighting or weather conditions, and driving ability of the driver. (At least some of this data may be provided by one or more of the accessories 108a, 108b, 108c of the automobile 102.) If the object is identified, particularly with a high degree of confidence, this information may also be considered when determining such probability.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0088: “The average matching scores for hazardous objects may be considered as part of determining the impact or danger probability. For example, if an average matching score reveals that the user is unaware of the hazardous object, content in the form of a warning may be presented to the user. Examples of these warnings are described above and below. In this scenario, a lower average matching score may be more important in determining whether to present content to the user. If the system determines that the user appears to be aware of the hazardous object, no warning may be generated.”) (Cordell Paragraph 0098: “At decision block 318, a determination is made whether an object not being looked at by the user is a hazardous object or an informational sign. For example, if the user is looking at a side mirror but a pedestrian is directly in front of the automobile, then the object (i.e., the pedestrian) may be determined to be a threat to the automobile and thus, a hazardous object. If the user is looking at something in the back seat of the automobile as the automobile is approaching a speed-limit sign, the object (i.e., the speed-limit sign) may be determined to be an informational sign, which may or may not be a hazardous object.”) classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; (Cordell Paragraph 0076: “Once the objects in the image are identified, they can be labeled and confidence factors, indicating the probability of the accuracy of the identification, may be assigned to them. Objects tagged with confidence factors below a certain threshold may be discarded, at least for that particular image. In other cases, objects with confidence factors below the threshold or that are otherwise unidentifiable may still be considered as part of the correlation with the user's attention direction. For example, the system may be unable to accurately identify an object located in the middle of the road, which may present a hazardous condition. As such, the system may avoid discarding the unidentified object to ensure the user is cognizant of it. (An object may be labeled as an unidentified object if its confidence factor is below the threshold.) Using the relevant reference system, a relative position of one or more of the objects (identified or unidentified) may be estimated.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna to include […] lowering a confidence level threshold used by a collision avoidance system of the vehicle for classifying the detected object as a hazardous target, wherein an amount by which the confidence level threshold is lowered depends on a type of the detected driver alertness problem; and classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target based on the lowered confidence level threshold, wherein because the lowered confidence level threshold is based on the type of the detected driver alertness problem, classifying the detected object as a hazardous target or an irrelevant target is dependent on, and not independent of, the detected driver alertness problem; taught by Cordell. This would have been for the benefit to provide a warning that can be presented to the driver to draw the driver’s attention to the hazardous object or informational sign in order to give context to a user using a head unit in an automobile. [Cordell Paragraph 0002 and 0004]
Regarding claim 18, Hanna discloses The vehicle safety system of Claim 17, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automatic braking system. (Hanna Paragraph 0041: “In this case, because the driver has not seen the potential obstacle and therefore would not actuate the brakes himself/herself, then it may be safer for the system to actuate the brakes even if there is some limited uncertainty in the ADAS system.”)
Regarding claim 19, Hanna discloses The vehicle safety system of Claim 17, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises a collision warning system. (Hanna Paragraph 0055: “In some embodiments, the ADAS mechanism implemented in the present solution may include (vehicle user or road user) alerting functionality in the ADAS mechanism's collision avoidance operations. In this case, the system may accordingly adjust respective threshold(s) for triggering or sending alert(s) to the user and/or the road user (potential obstacle).”)
6. Claim(s) 2, 4, 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna (US 20180086339 A1) in view of Cordell (US 20210078408 A1) and further in view of (US 20220121867 A1) to Arar et al. (hereinafter Arar).
Regarding claim 2, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an advanced emergency braking system.
However, Arar does teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an advanced emergency braking system. (Arar Paragraph 0145: “The vehicle 500 may include an ADAS system 538. The ADAS system 538 may include a SoC, in some examples. The ADAS system 538 may
include autonomous/adaptive/automatic cruise control (ACC), cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC), forward crash warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB),”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an advanced emergency braking system taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 4, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automated steering controller.
However, Arar does teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automated steering controller. (Arar Paragraph 0145: “The vehicle 500 may include an ADAS system 538. The ADAS system 538 may include a SoC, in some examples. The ADAS system 538 may include autonomous/adaptive/automatic cruise control (ACC), cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC), forward crash warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warnings (LDW), lane keep assist (LKA), ”) (Arar Paragraph 0151: “LKA systems are a variation of LDW systems. LKA systems provide steering input or braking to correct the vehicle 500 if the vehicle 500 starts to exit the lane”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automated steering controller taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 8, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises an infrared sensor positioned to observe a pupil of the driver.
However, Arar does teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises an infrared sensor positioned to observe a pupil of the driver. (Arar Paragraph 0023: “In some embodiments, the sensor data 102A may correspond to sensor data generated using in-cabin sensors, such as one or more in- cabin cameras, in-cabin near-infrared (NIR) sensors, in-cabin microphones, and/or the like,”). (Arar Paragraph 0024: “The sensor data 102A may be used by a body tracker 104 and/or an eye tracker 106 to determine gestures, postures, activities, eye movements (e.g., saccade velocity, smooth pursuits, gaze locations, directions, or vectors, pupil size, blink rate, road scan range and distribution, etc.)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises an infrared sensor positioned to observe a pupil of the driver taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 9, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises microphone configured to detect speech of the driver.
However, Arar does teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises microphone configured to detect speech of the driver. (Arar Paragraph 0023: “In some embodiments, the sensor data 102A may correspond to sensor data generated using in-cabin sensors, such as one or more in-cabin cameras, in-cabin near-infrared (NIR) sensors, in-cabin microphones, and/or the like,”) (Arar Paragraph 0169: “computing device(s) 600 suitable for use in implementing some embodiments of the present disclosure.”) (Arar Paragraph 0180: “The I/O ports 612 may enable the computing
device 600 to be logically coupled to other devices including the I/O components 614, the
presentation component(s) 618, and/or other components, some of which may be built in to
(e.g., integrated in) the computing device 600. Illustrative I/O components 614 include a
microphone, mouse, keyboard, joystick, game pad, game controller, satellite dish, scanner,
printer, wireless device, etc. The I/O components 614 may provide a natural user interface
(NUI) that processes air gestures, voice, or other physiological inputs generated by a user.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises microphone configured to detect speech of the driver taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 12, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The method of Claim 10, wherein the driver assistance system further comprises an autonomous steering system.
However, Arar does teach The method of Claim 10, wherein the driver assistance system further comprises an autonomous steering system. (Arar Paragraph 0145: “The vehicle 500 may include an ADAS system 538. The ADAS system 538 may include a SoC, in some examples. The ADAS system 538 may include autonomous/adaptive/automatic cruise control (ACC), cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC), forward crash warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warnings (LDW), lane keep assist (LKA), ”) (Arar Paragraph 0151: “LKA systems are a variation of LDW systems. LKA systems provide steering input or braking to correct the vehicle 500 if the vehicle 500 starts to exit the lane”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The method of Claim 10, wherein the driver assistance system further comprises an autonomous steering system taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 15, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The method of claim 10, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises lidar, an infrared sensor, or a microphone.
However, Arar does teach The method of claim 10, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises lidar, an infrared sensor, or a microphone. (Arar Paragraph 0023: “In some embodiments, the sensor data 102A may correspond to sensor data generated using in-cabin sensors, such as one or more in- cabin cameras, in-cabin near-infrared (NIR) sensors, in-cabin microphones, and/or the like,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The method of claim 10, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises lidar, an infrared sensor, or a microphone taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 16, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 10, accordingly, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The method of Claim 10, wherein the vehicle sensor further comprises radar, lidar, a vehicle location sensor, a deceleration sensor, a steering angle sensor, a wheel speed sensor, and a brake pressure sensor.
However, Arar does teach The method of Claim 10, wherein the vehicle sensor further comprises radar, lidar, a vehicle location sensor, a deceleration sensor, (Arar Paragraph 0066: “The sensor data may be received from, for example and without limitation, global navigation satellite systems sensor(s) 558 (e.g., Global Positioning System sensor(s)), RADAR sensor(s) 560, ultrasonic sensor(s) 562, LiDAR sensor(s) 564, inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor(s) 566 (e.g., accelerometer(s),”) a steering angle sensor, (Arar Paragraph 0066: “The controller(s) 536 may provide the signals for controlling one or more components and/or systems of the vehicle 500 in response to sensor data received from one or more sensors (e.g., sensor inputs). The sensor data may be received from, for example and without limitation, global navigation satellite systems sensor(s) 558 (e.g., Global Positioning System sensor(s)), RADAR sensor(s) 560, ultrasonic sensor(s) 562, LiDAR sensor(s) 564, inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor(s) 566 (e.g., accelerometer(s), gyroscope(s), magnetic compass(es), magnetometer(s), etc.), microphone(s) 596, stereo camera(s) 568, wide-view camera(s) 570 (e.g., fisheye cameras), infrared camera(s) 572, surround camera(s) 574 (e.g., 360 degree cameras), long- range and/or mid-range camera(s) 598, speed sensor(s) 544 (e.g., for measuring the speed of the vehicle 500), vibration sensor(s) 542, steering sensor(s) 540, brake sensor(s) (e.g., as part of the brake sensor system 546), and/or other sensor types.”) (Arar Paragraph 0079: “The CAN bus may be read to find steering wheel angle”) (Arar Paragraph 0080: “In some examples, each SoC 504, each controller 536, and/or each computer within the vehicle may have access to the same input data (e.g., inputs from sensors of the vehicle 500), and may be connected to a common bus, such the CAN bus.”) a wheel speed sensor, (Arar Paragraph 006: “speed sensor(s) 544 (e.g., for measuring the speed of the vehicle 500)”) and a brake pressure sensor. (Arar Paragraph 0066: “brake sensor(s) (e.g., as part of the brake sensor system 546)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The method of Claim 10, wherein the vehicle sensor further comprises radar, lidar, a vehicle location sensor, a deceleration sensor, a steering angle sensor, a wheel speed sensor, and a brake pressure sensor taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 20, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 17, accordingly, the rejection of Claim 17 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The vehicle safety system of Claim 17, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automatic steering system.
However, Arar does teach The vehicle safety system of Claim 17, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automatic steering system. (Arar Paragraph 0145: “The vehicle 500 may include an ADAS system 538. The ADAS system 538 may include a SoC, in some examples. The ADAS system 538 may include autonomous/adaptive/automatic cruise control (ACC), cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC), forward crash warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warnings (LDW), lane keep assist (LKA), ”) (Arar Paragraph 0151: “LKA systems are a variation of LDW systems. LKA systems provide steering input or braking to correct the vehicle 500 if the vehicle 500 starts to exit the lane”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The vehicle safety system of Claim 17, wherein the collision avoidance system further comprises an automatic steering system taught by Arar. This would have been for the benefit to provide more efficient systems and methods to compare estimated field of view or gaze information of a user to vehicle perception information corresponding to an environment outside of the vehicle. As a result, interior monitoring of a driver or occupant of the vehicle may be extended to an exterior of the vehicle to determine whether the driver or occupant has processed or seen certain object types, environmental conditions, or other information exterior to the vehicle—e.g., dynamic actors, static objects, vulnerable road users (VRUs), wait condition information, signs, potholes, bumps, debris, etc. [Arar Paragraph 0004]
7. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna (US 20180086339 A1) in view of Cordell (US 20210078408 A1) and further in view of (US10106156 B1) to Nave et al. (hereinafter Nave).
Regarding claim 7, Hanna in view of Cordell teaches claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated above.
Hanna in view of Cordell does not teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises a lidar sensor positioned to detect head movement of the driver.
However, Nave does teach The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises a lidar sensor positioned to detect head movement of the driver. (Nave Column 14, line number 52-55: “The position of the occupant may include the occupant's body orientation, the location of specific limbs, and/or other positional information. In one example, plurality of sensors 105 may include an in-cabin facing camera, LIDAR”) (Nave Column 28, line number 53-59: “The skeletal positioning may include positioning of the occupant's joints, spine, arms, legs, torso, neck
face, head, major bones, hands, and/or feet. In some embodiments, the internal sensors 105 constantly transmit sensor data to vehicle computer device 110, which constantly determines 920 the positional information of the occupants.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hanna in view of Cordell to include The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 5, wherein the driver-facing sensor further comprises a lidar sensor positioned to detect head movement of the driver taught by Nave. This would have been for the benefit to provide reconstruction of a vehicular crash and, more particularly, to a network-based system and method for reconstructing a vehicular crash or other collision based upon sensor data and determining a severity of the vehicular crash based upon the reconstruction. [Nave Column 1, line number 31-36]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights