DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The list of claims 1-14 is pending. In the claim set filed 05/18/2026:
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, 6, 10 and 13 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 4, 7-9, 11, 12 and 14 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination(RCE) filed on 05/18/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, but have not been found persuasive.
The Applicant first argues that the proposed amendments recite: “require specialized sensors and vehicle equipment to gather various real-time conditions and passenger state data, and hardware to deliver content. These concrete physical elements cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Thus, as amended, the claims are not directed to a mere disembodied idea or mental process at all, but to a specific technological solution implemented in a motor vehicle.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant claimed invention recites using “at least one sensor” without further limiting the type of sensor. Therefore, the claimed invention does not recite “specialized sensors” as the Applicant asserts. Second, the Applicant does not positively recite the structural components of the sensors, rather the Applicant merely claims a method of using generic sensors to make a determination that a driver/passenger of a vehicle is in a particular state. Stating that the sensors are “installed in the motor vehicle” constitutes mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and therefore does not meaningfully limit the claim such that it amounts to more than an abstract idea in view of MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The Applicant then argues: “The amended claim also recites significantly more than any abstract idea, in the form of a novel combination of non-conventional elements and steps that yield a specific improvement. The particular multi-modal data fusion (combining cabin conditions, ambient conditions, vehicle operating parameters, and occupant state) and the feedback-based content control loop (dynamic selection and output of appropriate content based on current conditions) are not routine or generic in the field of vehicle infotainment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claimed invention broadly recites that the method evaluates a condition about a passenger by evaluating “ascertained conditions,” “ambient conditions,” “operating parameters,” and the “state of the passenger.” These limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that it is unclear how the Applicant justifies that this claimed process is “particular multi-modal data fusion.”
Finally the Applicant argues: “The Office Action argued that prior claim l's sensor and output steps were "insignificant extra-solution activity". Applicants respectfully disagree with that characterization. In the present amended claim, the sensors are not token or ancillary; they form the very heart of the solution. The integrated use of multiple on-board sensors (camera, microphones, vehicle speed sensors, etc.) to continuously monitor a vehicle's environment and occupants, coupled with real-time algorithmic evaluation and dynamic adjustment of the multimedia system, was neither well-understood nor routine in conventional in-car media systems.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant attempts to overstate the specificity of the cited claim limitations in their explanation in order to read-in information from their specification to further narrow the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention without actually claiming any of the specific limitations cited. Specifically, the Applicant argues:
1) integrated use of multiple sensors, rather than “at least one sensor,” which is what the Applicant actually claimed;
2) real-time algorithmic evaluation and dynamic adjustment of the multimedia system, which is not claimed anywhere in independent claim 1.
In conclusion, in view of at least the above, the Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s claimed invention (according to claim 1) recites the following:
Ascertaining conditions within a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, ambient conditions around the motor vehicle, and operating parameters of the motor vehicle – using any broadly recited sensor
Ascertaining information about a state of a first passenger – using any broadly recited sensor
Selecting predetermined content to present based on the previously ascertained information
Presenting the selected predetermined content – using a broadly recited output device
Steps 1) and 2) above comprise Pre-solution activity: “An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process;” MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 3) is an abstract mental process that comprises a user determining which predetermined output corresponds to the ascertained information. This step can clearly be performed in the human mind.
Step 4) comprises Post-solution activity: by outputting, in a generic way, the determined predetermined output on a multimedia output device, which is additionally not positively recited as a structural element.
Furthermore, the Applicant’s specification does not explain how the claimed invention “improves safety and comfort,” rather, the Applicant states in a conclusory way that the claimed invention presents information “in a manner that maintains or improves at least one of driving safety or passenger comfort.” Stating that an invention is a technological improvement is not persuasive, rather the Applicant’s claimed invention should perform a function that one of ordinary skill in the art would further interpret as an improvement to a real-world technological field for reasons provided in the Applicant’s disclosure, which the Applicant has failed to do.
Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and have been found persuasive.
Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to due to the following minor informalities.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites: “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle; ascertaining information about a state of a first passenger, utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle;” which is a minor antecedent basis issue. The cited claim limitation should be amended to instead recite: “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle; ascertaining information about a state of a first passenger, utilizing the at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle.”
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites: “recording sounds and/or ascertaining gases in the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle;” which is a minor spelling issue. The cited claim limitation should be amended to instead recite: “recording sounds and/or ascertaining gazes
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: ascertaining “conditions with a passenger compartment,” “ambient conditions around the motor vehicle and operating parameters of the motor vehicle” (these limitations broadly recite receiving data) using broadly recited sensors, “evaluating information about a state of a first passenger and selecting information and/or entertainment from a result” (these limitations broadly recite analyzing the previously received data), and “and providing the information and/or entertainment selected for the first passenger” using a broadly recited multimedia output device (these limitations broadly recite outputting information based on the previously analyzed data).
The limitations presented above, which present steps of: receiving data from a broadly recited sensor, analyzing the received data, and outputting information based on the previously analyzed data, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. That is, other than reciting “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle” (which is pre-solution activity) and “providing the information and/or entertainment selected for the first passenger,” using at least one multimedia output device (which is post-solution activity) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle” and “providing the information and/or entertainment selected for the first passenger” language, receiving data and analyzing the received data in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user manually performing steps of analyzing gathered data and selecting an appropriate predetermined information output response based on the results of the analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of insignificant extra-solution, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional elements – “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor” and “controlling at least one multimedia output device.” The “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor” and “controlling at least one multimedia output device” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception by incorporating an additional element(s) in the claimed method. Accordingly, this additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “controlling at least one multimedia output device” based on the analysis of previously gathered data steps “utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor” amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception by incorporating an additional element(s) in the claimed method. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim(s), for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle or an apparatus in some way with the output of the data or further showing that the claimed subject matter is an improvement to a technical field. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by IKEDA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0319279 A1), referenced as Ikeda moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Ikeda discloses:
“A method for providing information and entertainment in a motor vehicle, the method comprising: ascertaining conditions within a passenger compartment of the motor vehicle, ambient conditions around the motor vehicle and operating parameters of the motor vehicle, utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle” [Ikeda; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Ikeda discloses an on-vehicle apparatus (1 in Fig. 4) connected to sensors (32 in Fig. 4) via the sensor interface (104 in Fig. 4) to measure parameters pertaining to the passenger's state as well as the vehicles current speed, current location and traffic around the current location using the on-board GPS system of the vehicle; Fig. 3, 4; ¶: 0045-0050, 0078];
“ascertaining information about a state of a first passenger, utilizing at least one sensor installed in the motor vehicle” [Ikeda; "The passenger state determining unit 12 may determine whether the passenger is sleeping, by combining those determination techniques;" ¶: 0051; See also: Fig. 3, 4; ¶: 0045-0050, 0078];
“evaluating the ascertained conditions within a passenger compartment, ambient conditions, operating parameters, and information about the state of the first passenger to generate a content selection and selecting information and/or entertainment from a result; and providing the information and/or entertainment selected for the first passenger” [Ikeda; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Ikeda discloses, responsive to determining that the passenger is sleeping, causing the vehicle to re-search for a new travel route based on the passenger's state to generate an appropriate response to make the driver feel less drowsy as follows: "In the present embodiment, when the control unit 13 determines that the passenger is sleeping, the control unit 13 changes music played in the vehicle to music that makes the driver feel less drowsy. For example, the control unit 13 generates operation information that instructs the device driving unit 15 to change music to one that makes the driver feel uplifted, and transmits the generated operation information to the device driving unit 15;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0140; See also: Fig. 2, 3; ¶: 0045-0050, 0078, 0141-0147];
“wherein providing the selected information and/or entertainment comprises controlling at least one multimedia output device of the motor vehicle to present the selected information and/or entertainment in a manner that maintains or improves at least one of driving safety or passenger comfort” [Ikeda; "The device driving unit 15 instructs an audio player to change music according to the operation information;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0141;
"Note that the device driving unit 15 may perform control to change music and increase volume;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0142;
"As described above, in the present embodiment, when the passenger is sleeping, the driver is made to feel uplifted, by which the driver can continue driving without feeling drowsy;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0143; See also: Fig. 2, 3; ¶: 0045-0050, 0078, 0140, 0144-0147].
With respect to claim 7, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising ascertaining data of a map” [Ikeda; "The route searching unit 16 searches for a travel route using map information, for a preset destination. Then, the route searching unit 16 stores route information illustrating the travel route obtained by the search, in the route information holding unit 14;" Fig. 5; ¶: 0089].
With respect to claim 8, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 7, further comprising ascertaining a current location of the motor vehicle and a destination for a current journey” [Ikeda; See at least ¶: 0078 disclosing a GPS on the vehicle, and ¶: 0089 disclosing determining the preset destination of the vehicle].
With respect to claim 10, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising registering at least one of states of a flow of traffic that the motor vehicle is in, a driving task, navigation directions, a driving time already required, an estimated driving time required to a destination and/or a current whereabouts of the motor vehicle” [Ikeda; Ikeda discloses monitoring the speed of the vehicle in real-time using the on-board vehicle speed sensor in at least ¶: 0078].
With respect to claim 11, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising registering at least one of the operating parameters: vehicle speed, engine speed, energy reserve, engine oil temperature, yaw rate, tire pressure or acceleration” [Ikeda; Ikeda discloses monitoring the speed of the vehicle in real-time using the on-board vehicle speed sensor in at least ¶: 0078].
With respect to claim 12, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein evaluating information about the state of the first passenger encompasses at least information concerning the tiredness, emotion, mood, excitation, stress, attentiveness, intoxication, age and/or sex of the first passenger” [Ikeda; "The passenger state determining unit 12 may determine whether the passenger is sleeping, by combining those determination techniques;" ¶: 0051; See also: Fig. 3, 4; ¶: 0045-0050, 0078].
With respect to claim 14, Ikeda discloses: “The method as claimed in claim 1,further comprising performing at least one of the following actions: recording the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle by a 2D or 3D camera or radar or lidar, recording sounds and/or ascertaining gases in the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle” [Ikeda; "The passenger state determining unit 12, for example, extracts an image of eyes from the face image of the passenger and performs image analysis on the image of eyes. Then, the passenger state determining unit 12 analyzes whether the image of eyes show pupils, to determine whether the passenger is in an eyes-open state or an eyes-closed state. Then, when the passenger is closing his/her eyes continuously for a certain period of time or more, the passenger state determining unit 12 determines that the passenger is sleeping;" ¶: 0048].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of BOULANGER et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0171409 A1), referenced as Boulanger moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Ikeda does not specifically state: “further comprising ascertaining information about a state and/or behavior of any further passengers.”
Boulanger, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling information/entertainment systems in vehicles, teaches: “further comprising ascertaining information about a state and/or behavior of any further passengers” [Boulanger; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Boulanger teaches using sensors to determine a first emotional state associated with a first user of a vehicle and a second emotional state associated with a second user of the vehicle as follows:
"determining, via one or more processors, a first emotional state associated with a first user based on sensor data from one or more sensors;" claim 1;
"wherein the second audio content is based on a second emotional state associated with the second user;" claim 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding providing customized audio content to a plurality of passengers in a vehicle specifically tailored to each passenger in the vehicle as taught by Boulanger with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to automatically optimize audio content based the mood of the occupant such that each occupant is not required to make manual adjustments to improve their listening experience [Boulanger; ¶: 0002-0009].
With respect to claim 3, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein evaluating the ascertained conditions includes utilizing the ascertained information about the state and/or behavior of any further passengers and further comprising providing the information and/or entertainment for the first passenger and the further passengers from the result.”
Boulanger teaches: “wherein evaluating the ascertained conditions includes utilizing the ascertained information about the state and/or behavior of any further passengers and further comprising providing the information and/or entertainment for the first passenger and the further passengers from the result” [Boulanger; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Boulanger further teaches using the ascertained first emotional state and second emotional state to output first audio content to the first user of the vehicle and second user content to the second user of the vehicle based on the respective emotional states of the first and second users as follows:
"acquiring, via the one or more processors, first personalized audio content based on the first emotional state associated with the first user; causing a first audio device associated with the first user to output the first audio content;" claim 1;
"further comprising acquiring the second audio content, wherein the second audio content is based on a second emotional state associated with the second user;" claim 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding providing customized audio content to a plurality of passengers in a vehicle specifically tailored to each passenger in the vehicle as taught by Boulanger with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to automatically optimize audio content based the mood of the occupant such that each occupant is not required to make manual adjustments to improve their listening experience [Boulanger; ¶: 0002-0009].
With respect to claim 6, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein preferences of the first passenger and/or of the further passenger(s) for the information and/or entertainment is input.”
Boulanger teaches: “wherein preferences of the first passenger and/or of the further passenger(s) for the information and/or entertainment is input” [Boulanger; "The audio system is then able to provide personalized audio content to the different sound zones based on manual selections that are made by the individual occupants of the vehicle. For example, a driver could specify that the audio system provide only navigation and safety commands to the driver seating position, while the front passenger could specify that the audio system provide a rock music broadcast to the front passenger seating position;" ¶: 0004; See also: ¶: 0002, 0003, 0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding providing customized audio content to a plurality of passengers in a vehicle specifically tailored to each passenger in the vehicle as taught by Boulanger with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to automatically optimize audio content based the mood of the occupant such that each occupant is not required to make manual adjustments to improve their listening experience [Boulanger; ¶: 0002-0009].
With respect to claim 13, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein evaluating information about the state and/or behaviour of any further passengers encompasses at least information about the behavior of the further passengers and/or about an atmosphere between the passengers.”
Boulanger teaches: “wherein evaluating information about the state and/or behaviour of any further passengers encompasses at least information about the behavior of the further passengers and/or about an atmosphere between the passengers” [Boulanger; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Boulanger teaches implementing an emotion classifier that uses sensor data from the respective passengers in order to generate a personalized response for each passenger including for example: body position/movement of the respective occupants as well as words uttered by each occupant for example; ¶: 0026-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding providing customized audio content to a plurality of passengers in a vehicle specifically tailored to each passenger in the vehicle as taught by Boulanger with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to automatically optimize audio content based the mood of the occupant such that each occupant is not required to make manual adjustments to improve their listening experience [Boulanger; ¶: 0002-0009].
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Boulanger and BURMISTROV et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0089086 A1), referenced as Burmistrov moving forward.
With respect to claim 4, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein reactions of the first passenger and any further passengers to the information and/or entertainment provided are ascertained and stored in a storage medium and taken into consideration by a memory reading step for a subsequent selection of information and/or entertainment to be provided.”
Burmistrov, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling information/entertainment systems in vehicles, teaches: “wherein reactions of the first passenger and any further passengers to the information and/or entertainment provided are ascertained and stored in a storage medium and taken into consideration by a memory reading step for a subsequent selection of information and/or entertainment to be provided” [Burmistrov; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Burmistrov teaches retrieving an individual profile for a driver/occupant of a vehicle, from preferences directly expressed by the driver that are stored in memory, at the start of a driving session, in which: "The individual profile 160 specifies, without limitation, any number and/or types of alert preferences (not shown) directly expressed by the driver 104 of the vehicle 102 in any technically feasible fashion;" ¶: 0042; See also: Fig. 1-3; ¶: 0039-0041, 0043-0048, 0065-0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding assessing reactions of vehicle occupants to an alert, and further using this feedback to update future alerts to the occupants as taught by Burmistrov with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to modify “the alert characteristics can reduce the likelihood that the driver becomes discouraged from using the DMS or paying attention to in-vehicle alerts. In this fashion, the alert personalization application can improve driver safety across a wider variety of drivers relative to prior art approaches to generating in-vehicle alerts” [Burmistrov; ¶: 0002-0004, 0118].
With respect to claim 5, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein the first passenger is identified and is associated with the reactions stored, which is taken into consideration by the memory reading step for a subsequent selection of the information and/or entertainment to be provided.”
Burmistrov teaches: “wherein the first passenger is identified and is associated with the reactions stored, which is taken into consideration by the memory reading step for a subsequent selection of the information and/or entertainment to be provided” [Burmistrov; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Burmistrov further teaches monitoring the driver's/occupant's reaction to the alerts generated based on the above recited individual profile, such that if a negative reaction is observed, the system modifies the response to reduce the driver's/occupant's annoyance and overwrites the driver's profile such that the driver's/occupant's change preferences may be stored to use at the beginning of the next driving session; Fig. 1-3; ¶: 0039-0048, 0065-0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding assessing reactions of vehicle occupants to an alert, and further using this feedback to update future alerts to the occupants as taught by Burmistrov with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to modify “the alert characteristics can reduce the likelihood that the driver becomes discouraged from using the DMS or paying attention to in-vehicle alerts. In this fashion, the alert personalization application can improve driver safety across a wider variety of drivers relative to prior art approaches to generating in-vehicle alerts” [Burmistrov; ¶: 0002-0004, 0118].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Terwilliger et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0093672 A1), referenced as Terwilliger moving forward.
With respect to claim 9, Ikeda does not specifically state: “wherein distances travelled are stored and are taken into consideration by a memory reading step during subsequent selection of information and/or entertainment.”
Terwilliger, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling information/entertainment systems in vehicles, teaches: “wherein distances travelled are stored and are taken into consideration by a memory reading step during subsequent selection of information and/or entertainment” [Terwilliger; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Terwilliger teaches assessing the state of a driver of a vehicle in order to provide alerts to the driver based on a plurality of conditions including but not limited to an amount of driving time/distance completed over the past month without a break in order to more accurately determine whether the driver's current state is allowing them to operate the vehicle safely based on the plurality of conditions considered; Fig. 9; ¶: 0038, 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle as disclosed by Ikeda to incorporate the teachings regarding tailoring alerts to provide to a vehicle driver based on historical driving time stored over a previous duration for the particular driver as taught by Terwilliger with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicle alerts based on assessing the states of one or more passengers in the vehicle that is more robust in its ability to feedback to a vehicle driver specific to the particular driver to address the fact that handling needs and requirements vary between different users resulting in improved safety, efficiency and accuracy [Terwilliger; ¶: 0003, 0022, 0033, 0035].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Gee (United States Patent Publication 2012/0143391 A1) discloses: Methods and systems for analyzing communication options, including determining one or more driving factors, being provided with one or more HMI tailoring options, and analyzing the one or more driving factors and the one or more HMI tailoring options to determine an optimum HMI tailoring option.
Shintani et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0096699 A1) discloses: Provided is a device that identifies excitement in conversation among occupants of the vehicle and provides more appropriate information to the occupants at a better timing in accordance with a keyword which is expected to be of high interest for the occupants. A feeling estimation and determination unit estimates a feeling of an occupant in accordance with occupant state information acquired by an information acquisition unit. When the estimated feeling of the occupant corresponds to exaltation (excitement or the like), a target keyword designation unit designates a target keyword from keywords appearing during the past target time range and then outputs the target keyword. When a feeling of the occupant responding to the target keyword is positive, information associated with the target keyword is acquired and then output.
Zhao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0178808 A1) discloses: An occupant support adapted for use in a vehicle includes a seat bottom, a seat back, and a sensory system. The seat bottom is coupled to a floor of the vehicle. The seat back extends upwardly away from the seat bottom. The sensor system is configured to monitor for fatigue of an occupant of the occupant support.
Williams et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0176837 A1) discloses: A personalization system for a vehicle includes an image-capture device configured to capture a plurality of images of one or more occupants in the vehicle and control circuitry configured to estimate a plurality of Z-heights of a plurality of body portions of each of the one or more occupants from a reference position in the vehicle, based on the plurality of images captured from the image-capture device, determine an associative relationship between the plurality of Z-heights of the plurality of body portions of each of the one or more occupants in the vehicle and a plurality of in-vehicle systems, based on defined user-preferences, and control the plurality of in-vehicle systems to direct an output from a corresponding in-vehicle system to a specific body portion of each of the one or more occupants in the vehicle, based on the estimated plurality of Z-heights and the determined associative relationship.
Kodali et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0086882 A1) discloses: Exhaustive driving analytical methods, systems, are apparatuses are described. The methods, systems, are apparatuses relate to monitoring driver and/or driving behaviors in view of an exhaustive list of variables to determine safety factors, identify times to react to events, and contextual information regarding the events. The methods, systems, and apparatuses described herein may determine, based on a systematic model, reactions and reaction times, compare the vehicle behavior (or lack thereof) to the modeled reactions and reaction times, and determine safety factors and instructions based on the comparison.
Huet et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0174590 A1) discloses: Interactive content can be managed and provided to occupants of an automated vehicle to enhance their experience while in the vehicle. Orchestrator component can determine interactive content based on conditions associated with the vehicle, user preferences, video content, or other information. Interactive content can comprise video content, audio content, and control content. Video content can comprise augmented reality or virtual reality content. Control content can be used to control vehicle operation in relation to or synchronization with presentation of video content. Orchestrator component can correlate between certain roads on which the vehicle can travel and entertainment presentations presented to a vehicle occupant. Orchestrator component can control vehicle operation to have the vehicle recreate a vehicle action sequence (VAS) in a video program being presented to the occupant in the vehicle. Orchestrator component can notify nearby vehicles when VAS is be recreated, or another vehicle also can participate in VAS.
Herz et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0224963 A1) discloses: Methods and apparatus for personalizing a vehicle with a sensory output device include receiving, by one or more processors, a signal indicating an identity or passenger profile of a detected passenger in or boarding the vehicle, accessing preference data and geographic location data for the passenger, and selecting sensory content for delivery to the passenger in the vehicle based on the preference data and geographic location data. Methods and apparatus for producing video customized for a preference profile of a person or cohort include associating each of stored video clips with a set of characteristic parameters relating to user-perceivable characteristics, receiving user profile data relating to the person or cohort, selecting video clips from the data structure based at least partly on the user profile data, and automatically producing a video including the preferred video clips.
BISWAS et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0069413 A1) discloses: A system and method for providing assistance to vehicle occupants is disclosed. The method includes the steps of receiving a set of static information and a set of dynamic information associated with each of a vehicle, a set of Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs), and an occupant within the vehicle; processing the set of static information and the set of dynamic information through at least one of a first Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Model and a rule engine; determining an accessibility score for the occupant in response to an event based on an output of the processing; generating at least one of at least one accessibility compliant HMI content for at least one of the set of HMIs and vehicle control content for the vehicle based on the accessibility score; and executing at least one of the at least one accessibility compliant HMI content and the vehicle control content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights