Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment, on 11/5/25. Claims 1-20 were pending; Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. No claims are canceled or added so claims 1-20 remain. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of updated grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
In claims 1, 8 and 15 , image sensor is amended to be a separate device from the mobile device which itself could be various different devices, ie a camera could be a mobile device if it’s not attached to the car, but for simplicity assume it’s a cell phone. Now the claims “receiving from the image sensor and at the mobile device a first image depicting the driver and a second image depicting the driver captured via the image sensor. Does applicant intend a first image from the mobile device image sensor and a second image from the image sensor? Or are we receiving a first and a second set of images from depicting the driver captured via the image sensor? In in other words are there two sensors or is it just a single image sensor capturing multiple images. For the purposes of examination the examiner will assume that the image sensor alone captures images as in live recording which is essentially multiple images, not two discrete images.
The dependent claims 2-7,9-14, 15-20 do not correct the concern of claims 1, 8, 15 and are thus rejected by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
the instant invention is directed to a vehicle image sensor, and mobile device interaction to create a driving score via short range wireless. The invention is more than just the application of a generic computer to achieve an abstract idea.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
103(a) US Patent Publication to Stempora 20150025917
As per claim 1, Stemporal discloses; A computer-implemented method of assessing risk based on driver behavior, the method comprising:
activating an image sensor associated with a vehicle (associated with could be various things, but see below for a separate image sensor in 0090) in response to detecting a mobile device at the vehicle via a short range wireless communication (0096 one of the features of Stempora), wherein the image sensor oriented to capture images of a driver of the vehicle; Stempora(0075, 0105, in regards to the amended / argued element in 0114, Stempora says in one embodiment the portable device is a Bluetooth device that is paired to the vehicle and various other ways to link the phone and the vehicle)
receiving, from the image sensor and at the mobile device, a first image depicting the driver and a second image depicting the driver captured via the image sensor;
Stempora(0075)
analyzing, by the mobile device, the first image and the second image to detect (i) from the first image, a first hand or head position of the driver,
Stempora(head or hand is a choice, 0152)
and (ii) from the second image, a second hand or head position of the driver; determining (i) a first value representing a first risk of loss based on the first hand or head position and, (ii) a second value representing a second risk of loss based on the second hand or head position;
Stempora(0152 head position but also hand position 0157)
calculating, by the mobile device, a driving score based at least in part on first value and the second value; and displaying, by the mobile device, the driving score.
Stempora (0173, risk score based “in part” could be a little bit)
Here Stempora like applicant has multiple embodiments. However, in Stempora (0090) and is separate from the mobile device, Furthermore, while applicant appears to be using two images as example to identify changes in the user (see 112B above as it might be comparing the device and the image sensor or just two images from the image sensor, however Stempora watches for movement for example, 0272 without specifically saying two images because a video camera takes multiple images ( from Stempora like applicant “in one embodiment the vehicle or portable device …. Or an accessory or add on ….), thus it therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Stempora in various manners contemplated to “more accurately assess risk” (0003)
Claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1.
As per claim 2, Stempora discloses;
the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating (i) a first timestamp associated with capture of the first image, and (ii) a second timestamp associated with capture of the second image. Stempora(0052, it appears form applicant spec, the time stamps are just images being captured with the time attached, not first and second, these are just examples
Claims 9 and 16 are similar to claim 2
As per claim 3 Stempora discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein displaying the driving score comprises: displaying, by the mobile device, (i) the driving score, (ii) the first timestamp, and (iii) the second timestamp.
Stempora(0052, it appears form applicant spec, the time stamps are just images being captured with the time attached, not first and second, these are just examples, see 0198 for feedback to the individual display)
Claims 10, 17 are similar to claim 3
As per claim 4, Stempora discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the image sensor is disposed within the vehicle. (claim 6 of parent)
Stempora (0201 of stempora, vehicle camera on the outside and falling asleep measured by a sensor)
Claim 11 is similar to claim 4
As per claim 5 Stempora discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein displaying the driving score comprises: displaying, by the mobile device, (i) the driving score as a number, and (ii) a label grade. (per applicant spec. label grade is good/fair/poor, letter grade etc., any will be ok, 0260 of Stempora risk profile… risk score)
Claims 12 and 18 are similar to claim 5.
As per claim 6, Stempora discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting (i) from the first image, the first hand or head position of the driver, and (ii) from the second image, the second hand or head position of the driver comprises: detecting (i) from the first image, whether a first hand of the driver is positioned on a steering wheel of the vehicle, and (ii) from the second image, whether a second hand of the driver is positioned on the steering wheel of the vehicle. (0157 can determine the hand positions, “or” is a choice)
Claims 13 and 19 are similar to claim 6.
As per claim 7 Stempora discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting (i) from the first image, the first hand or head position of the driver, and (ii) from the second image, the second hand or head position of the driver comprises: detecting (i) from the first image, a first direction in which a head of the driver is looking, and (ii) from the second image, a second direction in which the head of the driver is looking.
Stempora (0091, eye monitoring, eyes are in the head, applicant specification supports “looking” but not the direction of looking, only that they are looking forward or not, 0023-26, it does not say they can determine any other direction of looking)
Claims 14 and 20 are similar to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment, on 11/5/25. Claims 1-20 were pending; Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. No claims are canceled or added so claims 1-20 remain. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot in view of updated grounds of rejection. This action is a Final Rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 102 as allegedly being anticipated by Stempora (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0025917A1, hereinafter "Stempora"). – moot in view of amendment.
As amended, claim 1 recites, in part, "activating an image sensor associated with a vehicle in response to detecting a mobile device at the vehicle via a short range wireless communication, wherein the image sensor is oriented to capture images of a driver of the vehicle and is separate from the mobile device."
Here in view of applicant argument, the examiner agrees that the original citation from Stempora is more directed to mobile device. However, on further review 0090 indicates that the image sensor may be a separate device. (see above)
Claims 8 and 15 are similar to claim 1.
Stempora, cited by the Present Action as allegedly anticipating the pending claims, relates to "a system for determining a level of risk associated with an individual for underwriting purposes" which "comprises at least one sensor that provides information" where "[t]he individual information, such as eye related information, can be processed to generate cognitive information for the individual, which can be used to determine the level of risk associated with the individual." Stempora at Abstract.
In particular, Stempora suggests that "one or more sensors on a portable device [(cellphone, etc.)] captures information (such as camera image) that can be processed to determine information related to the individual's use of reflexive or analytical decision making processes" and "may also capture distracted driving information and identity information for the individual operating the automobile."
Stempora at [0072] and [0075], emphasis added. In other words, Stempora describes using sensors on a mobile phone to capture "camera image[s]" of "the individual operating the automobile." However, Stempora fails to describe or disclose activating the sensors "in response to detecting a mobile device at the vehicle via a short range wireless communication,"
as recited by amended claim 1. As such, Stempora fails to describe or suggest at least "activating an image sensor associated with a vehicle in response to detecting a mobile device at the vehicle via a short range wireless communication, wherein the image sensor is oriented to capture images of a driver of the vehicle and is separate from the mobile device," as recited by amended claim 1, and similarly recited by amended claims 8 and 15.
Here in view of applicant argument the examiner agreed that Stempora is more of an obvious reference because it includes elements in 0114 to link a mobile device to the vehicle automatically in many ways. While it is noted that the “mobile device” does not have to be a cell phone, it could be. Further the images of a vehicle image sensor 0136 are capturing driver gaze, ie which would be by orienting a camera at the driver.
It is also noted above that the images from applicant amendment could be multiple from one sensor or multiple from a sensor and the device as worded.
Dependent claims are argued by virtue of dependency only.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A search of IP.com revealed the following references;
IC-DEEP: A serious games based application to assess the ergonomics of in-vehicle information systems, IEEE 2012
User authentication using mobile phones for mobile payment, IEEE 2015
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights