DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/15/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. “the device as claimed in claim 5” should be read as “the device as claimed in claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remark, filed on 04/15/2026, regarding claims 1, and 3-11 interpretation of “processing unit” as a processor is persuasive. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection for claims 1, and 3-11 has been dropped.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant remarks, filed on 04/15/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103
rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark, on page 7 and 8, states that Kusumoto teaches away from the claim’s deceleration phase to confirm perception of danger.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, Kusumoto discloses decreasing instantaneous heart rate when the driver is cautious, which implies the driver is aware of the danger and is able to control the vehicle accordingly. When a driver first recognizes a danger, a sudden spike in heart rate can occur. A sustained spike after a danger might indicate a continued panic or inability to process the situation, while a decrease suggests the driver has mentally processed the danger and has shifted from panic to controlled response, indicating the perception of the danger. (Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, FIG. 12 shows a method for detecting a subject's sense of danger based on the subject's mental sweating and instantaneous heart rate. When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases).
Applicant’s remark, on page 7 and 8, asserts that introduction Begemann to teach the “math” of calculating the deceleration phase of heart rate is non-analogous, rather it is concerned with implantable pulse generator. Furthermore, it states that the office action lacks motivation to combine the medical devices for heart failure to determine the cognitive perception of a road hazard.
However, the incorporation of Begemann is to demonstrate the similarity of the “math” used to determine deceleration of heart rate, it is not to combine the hardware itself, making it an analogous art. Additionally, as discussed above, Kusumoto discloses determining the driver’s awareness of a danger by monitoring the deceleration phase of a driver’s heart rate. While Kusumoto does not specifically disclose the “math” of determining a deceleration phase as disclosed in the claim, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use a known method of detecting heart deceleration based on Begemann’s teaching to determine the heart rate deceleration phase.
Applicant’s remark, on page 8 and 9 states that the combination of references fails to suggest the critical 1 to 3 second window in combination with three-instant moving average algorithm to determine the deceleration phase of a heart rate. Furthermore, it states Hannula and Begemann operate on much broader time scale, but not instantaneously.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, Hannula discloses a three second time-window to gather data for sudden physiological changes, and determination of a driver’s instantaneous perception of danger based on heart beat detection. Moreover, the three-instant moving average algorithm is not disclosed in the claim. (Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used. A median value is calculated for the heart rate on the basis of the heart beat detections in the time window).
Applicant’s remark, on page 9 states the claimed algorithm-comparing instant t to the mean of the two preceding instants-provides a "bright-line" technical threshold that filters out random noise. This specific algorithmic logic is absent from Kaneda, Kusumoto, and Hannula. The Examiner's common sense argument fails because it cannot explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at this exact mathematical relationship without the benefit of the Applicant's disclosure as a guide.
However, calculation of mean of the two preceding instants to determine deceleration phase does not necessarily indicate the filtering of random noise. Additionally, the claim does not indicate the random noise filtration system. Moreover, the examiner did not use the mathematical relationship as a filtration mechanism but for detection of a decelerating heart rate.
Applicant’s remark, on page 9 states the claimed invention provides a specific technical effect in the field of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). By accurately determining if a driver has perceived a danger, the system can intelligently decide whether to intervene. If perception is confirmed via the claimed deceleration phase, the system can "silence" unnecessary alerts, thereby reducing "alarm fatigue" and preventing the driver from disabling safety features. This specific functional utility, using a micro-interval physiological reflex to modulate vehicle intervention, is a non-obvious advancement that is neither taught nor suggested by the cited combination of medical and general monitoring references.
However, as discussed in the previous office action, Kawase discloses vehicle driving control assistance based on driver’s awareness of danger, which corresponds to the Advanced Driver Assistance Systems(ADAS). Additionally, the silencing of unnecessary alerts is not disclosed in the claim, and the detection of driver’s danger awareness does not necessarily indicate alert silencing. ( Kawase, page 13, line 29, when it is determined that the driver is aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is performed, and when it is determined that the driver is not aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is not performed. Kawase, page 2, line 34, the driving support control unit 9 controls the driving support unit 5 according to the determination result of the danger determination unit 8).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP-2011022738-A) (hereinafter Kaneda) in view of Kusumoto (JP-2017124771-A) (hereinafter Kusumoto) ) in further view of Hannula (US 20020115938 A1) (hereinafter Hannula) in further view of Begemann (US 20020198462 A1) (hereinafter Begemann).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneda teaches a device for analyzing a vehicle driver's condition(Kaneda, page 1, line 2, a device and method for estimation of a driver's condition), the device comprising comprises:
a heart rate sensor configured to measure the driver's heart rate over time ( Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15, and the beat for calculating the heart beat interval from the signal of the electrocardiogram signal detection device), and
processor configured to(Kaneda, page 6, line 16, the driver condition estimation circuit 19 are one or a plurality of microcomputers including a microprocessor):
a) receive an indication of the danger present in the surroundings of the vehicle(The specification discloses one of the dangerous event that can be identified is a pedestrian passing in front of the vehicle. Kaneda has similar event recognition system that can detect a sudden pedestrian crossing. Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means 1 for detecting a change in the driving conditions generated during the driving of a vehicle or an event related to the change. Kaneda, page 5, line 9, Typical changes in driving conditions include.. pedestrian jumping out. ),
b) analyze the driver's heart rate that was measured by the heart rate sensor, for a time interval which starts upon reception of the indication by the processor (Kaneda, page 6, line 3, when an event is detected by the event detection circuit 1, the learning circuit 17 determines whether or not there is a change in the beat interval calculated by the beat interval calculation circuit. Kaneda, page 4, line 16, estimating the driver's condition in a short period of time ), and
While Kaneda teaches a processing unit that has heart beat sensor, a danger detection mechanism, and a method of determining the attentiveness of a driver, it fails to teach a device that determine if the danger has been perceived or not by the driver depending on whether the driver's heart rate that was analyzed in step b) comprises a deceleration phase within the time interval; a time interval for heart rate data gathering wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds, wherein the processor determines that the driver's heart rate comprises a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate in step b') shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant t.
However, Kusumoto, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about driving support device that identifies a driver’s sense of danger discloses a device that determine if the danger has been perceived or not by the driver depending on whether the driver's heart rate that was analyzed in step b) comprises a deceleration phase within the time interval (Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, FIG. 12 shows a method for detecting a subject's sense of danger based on the subject's mental sweating and instantaneous heart rate. When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda with Kusumoto’s driver attention detection mechanism to a danger based on the decreasing of the heart rate. Kusumoto details a decrease in heart rate occurs when the driver is cautious(page 6, line 34), implying the driver is aware of the danger and is able to control the vehicle accordingly. When a driver first recognizes a danger, a sudden spike in heart rate can occur. A sustained spike after a danger might indicate a continued panic or inability to process the situation, while a decrease suggests the driver has mentally processed the danger and has shifted from panic to controlled response, indicating the perception of the danger.
While the combination of Kaneda and Kusumoto’ teach about evaluating the heart beat rate of a driver for a period of time, it specifically fails to disclose a time interval for heart rate data gathering, wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds.
However, Hannula, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about the measurement of heart rate frequency from the hand discloses time interval for heart rate data gathering wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds(Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used. A median value is calculated for the heart rate on the basis of the heart beat detections in the time window.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda and Kusumoto with Hannula to obtain heart rate data within short time-window of three seconds. Hannula’s short three second time-window helps gather data for sudden physiological changes, and determine a driver’s instantaneous perception of danger. In contrary, longer time intervals may present inaccurate data regarding instantaneous heart rate data as it is measured in a span of longer duration.
While the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, and Hannula teaches about identifying danger, determining the heart rate of a driver, and determining if the driver has recognized a danger, it fails to disclose a device wherein the processor determines that the driver's heart rate comprises a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate in step b') shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant t.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Begemann, which is in the similar analogous art and that teaches about monitoring of a heart failure discloses a device wherein the processor determines that the driver's heart rate comprises a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate in step b) shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant t(As shown can be seen in fig.8 of Begemann, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda, Kusumoto, and Hannula with Begemann’s deceleration determination method based on the average of previous two heart rate data. Begemann does not specifically disclose the detecting of the decrease/increase of the heart rate data to determine if the driver has perceived a danger. However, as discussed above, Kusumoto(page 6, line 34) discloses the decrease can help determine the driver’s cautiousness. By combining Begemann’s heart deceleration determination mechanism and Kusumoto’s cautiousness evaluation, it’s possible to determine if the driver is aware of a danger. Evaluating deceleration of the driver’s heart rate by comparing the current heart rate to the average of the last two heart rate instants will establish personalized baseline for the driver rather than relying on random data, making it more accurate for each driver.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches the device as claimed in claim 1(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845) ), further comprising: an eye sensor configured to detect the direction in which the driver is looking(As described in the specification, an eye sensor can be a camera. Kusumoto, page 8, line 2, The degree of change of the scenery viewed by the driver through the front window glass can be acquired from an image captured by the outside camera. ), and wherein the processor determines in step c) that the danger has been perceived by the driver if the driver's heart rate that was analyzed in step b) comprises a deceleration phase(Kusumoto, page 6, line 34 FIG. 12 shows a method for detecting a subject's sense of danger based on the subject's mental sweating and instantaneous heart rate. When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases) and if, furthermore, the driver is looking at the field of driving(Kusumoto, page 6, line 40, FIG. 13 shows the subject's sense of danger according to the difference in the gaze direction using the above-described mental sweating and instantaneous heart rate(page 6, line 34 FIG. 12)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches the device as claimed in claim 5(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34,caution determination; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)), wherein the variation in the driver's heart rate is calculated from a reference heart rate, selected from: the driver's heart rate measured by the heart rate sensor at the instant when the indication is received by the processor in step a)( Kaneda, as disclosed above, teaches determining the heart beat rate of the driver when detecting an event. The determined heartbeat of Kaneda can be used as a reference to evaluate variation of instantaneous rate as taught by Begemann. Kaneda, page 6, line 3,when an event is detected by the event detection circuit 1, the learning circuit 17 determines whether or not there is a change in the beat interval calculated by the beat interval calculation circuit.) and the driver's mean heart rate measured by the heart rate sensor(as discussed above, Begemann discloses calculating average of previous heart beat rates to determine increase/decrease of current heartbeat(fig.8 of Begemann(830))).
Regarding claim 12, Kaneda teaches a method for analyzing a vehicle driver's condition(Kaneda, page 1, line 2, a device and method for estimation of a driver's condition), comprising:
measuring the driver's heart rate;( Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15, and the beat for calculating the heart beat interval from the signal of the electrocardiogram signal detection device)
receiving an indication of the danger present in the surroundings of the vehicle(The specification discloses one of dangerous situation that can be identified is a pedestrian passing in front of the vehicle. Kaneda has similar event recognition system can detect a sudden pedestrian crossing. Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means 1 for detecting a change in the driving conditions generated during the driving of a vehicle or an event related to the change. Kaneda, page 5, line 9, typical changes in driving conditions include…pedestrian jumping out.);
analyzing the driver's heart rate that was measured, for a time interval which starts upon reception of the indication of the danger,(Kaneda, page 6, line 3,when an event is detected by the event detection circuit 1, the learning circuit 17 determines whether or not there is a change in the beat interval calculated by the beat interval calculation circuit); and
While Kaneda teaches a processing unit that has heart beat sensor, a danger detection mechanism, and a method of determining the attentiveness of a driver, it fails to teach determining if the danger has been perceived or not by the driver depending on whether the driver's heart rate that was analyzed comprises a deceleration phase within the time interval; time interval for heart rate data gathering wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds; wherein the step of analyzing the driver's heart rate further comprises determining a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant.
However, Kusumoto, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about driving support device that identifies a driver’s sense of danger discloses determining if the danger has been perceived or not by the driver depending on whether the driver's heart rate that was analyzed comprises a deceleration phase within the time interval(Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, FIG. 12 shows a method for detecting a subject's sense of danger based on the subject's mental sweating and instantaneous heart rate. When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda with Kusumoto’s driver attention detection mechanism to a danger based on the decreasing of the heart rate. Kusumoto details a decrease in heart rate occurs when the driver is cautious(page 6, line 34), implying the driver is aware of the danger and is able to control the vehicle accordingly. When a driver first recognizes a danger, a sudden spike in heart rate can occur. A sustained spike after a danger might indicate a continued panic or inability to process the situation, while a decrease suggests the driver has mentally processed the danger and has shifted from panic to controlled response, indicating the perception of the danger.
While the combination of Kaneda and Kusumoto’ teach about evaluating the heart beat rate of a driver for a period of time, it specifically fails to disclose a time interval for heart rate data gathering, wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds.
However, Hannula, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about the measurement of heart rate frequency from the hand discloses time interval for heart rate data gathering wherein a duration of the time interval is between 1 second and 3 seconds(Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used. A median value is calculated for the heart rate on the basis of the heart beat detections in the time window.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda and Kusumoto with Hannula to obtain heart rate data within short time-window of three seconds. Hannula’s short three second time-window helps gather data for sudden physiological changes, and determine a driver’s instantaneous perception of danger. In contrary, longer time intervals may present inaccurate data regarding instantaneous heart rate data as it is measured in a span of longer duration.
While the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, and Hannula teaches about identifying danger, determining the heart rate of a driver, and determining if the driver has recognized a danger, it fails to disclose a device wherein the step of analyzing the driver's heart rate further comprises determining a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Begemann, which is in the similar analogous art and that teaches about monitoring of a heart failure discloses a device wherein the step of analyzing the driver's heart rate further comprises determining a deceleration phase when the analysis of the heart rate shows that the variation in the driver's heart rate at an instant t has a lower value than the mean of the values adopted by the variation in heart rate at the two instants preceding the instant(As shown can be seen in fig.8 of Begemann, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda, Kusumoto, and Hannula with Begemann’s deceleration determination method based on the average of previous two heart rate data. Begemann does not specifically disclose the detecting of the decrease/increase of the heart rate data to determine if the driver has perceived a danger. However, as discussed above, Kusumoto(page 6, line 34) discloses the decrease can help determine the driver’s cautiousness. By combining Begemann’s heart deceleration determination mechanism and Kusumoto’s cautiousness evaluation, it’s possible to determine if the driver is aware of a danger. Evaluating deceleration of the driver’s heart rate by comparing the current heart rate to the average of the last two heart rate instants will establish personalized baseline for the driver rather than relying on random data, making it more accurate for each driver.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP-2011022738-A) (hereinafter Kaneda) in view of Kusumoto (JP-2017124771-A) (hereinafter Kusumoto) ) in further view of Hannula (US 20020115938 A1) (hereinafter Hannula) in further view of Begemann (US 20020198462 A1) (hereinafter Begemann) in further view of Ito (JP 2010063682 A)( hereinafter Ito).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches the device [[(1)]] as claimed in claim 1(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)),
While the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches about identifying danger, determining the heart rate of a driver, and determining if the driver has recognized a danger, it fails to disclose a device further comprising: a respiration sensor for sensing the driver's breathing that is designed to measure the driver's respiratory rate)), and wherein the processor is configured to correct the driver's heart rate that was analyzed in step b) depending on the measured respiratory rate
However, Ito ,which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about driver monitoring apparatus for evaluating mental burdens on a driver based on different physiological evaluation such as heart beat discloses an apparatus further comprising: a respiration sensor for sensing the driver's breathing that is designed to measure the driver's respiratory rate(Ito, page 10, line 3, The respiration evaluation means 45 can detect a driver | operator's respiration by counting the respiration rate from the motion of the chest (operation | movement which a lung expands and squeezes)), and wherein the processor is configured to correct the driver's heart rate that was analyzed in step b) depending on the measured respiratory rate(Ito, page 10, line 1, When the driver's breathing is rough and it is considered that the driver is not at rest, such as immediately after exercise, the heart rate variability entropy cannot be correctly evaluated, so the respiratory evaluation means 45 performs an evaluation process on the mental load evaluation means 43).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann with Ito’s respiratory sensor and heart beat rate correction. The specification discloses correcting the heart beat rate result by respiratory rate measure in cases where the heart rate may be influenced by the heavy breathing. Similarly, Ito discloses evaluating the respiration of the driver in such cases as when the driver is breathing rough to determine the status of driver. By not fully depending on the heart rate, and incorporating the respiratory sensor, it’s possible to avoid inaccurate heart rate data that can occur due to heavy breathing, respiratory problems or similar issues that can affect the normal breathing of the driver. An incorrect heart rate reading will subsequently lead to wrong determination of driver perception.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches the device as claimed in claim 1(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)), wherein the heart rate sensor comprises a sensor for sensing the electrical activity of the heart or a sensor for sensing the mechanical activity of the heart, and wherein the heart rate sensor is disposed on the steering wheel, and/or on the driver's seat (Ito, page 6, line 6, If the RR interval, which is the wave period, can be detected in a pseudo manner, a pulse sensor or the like that is arranged in the driver's seat 2 and obtains a contact state with the driver can be substituted)and/or on the driver's seatbelt and/or remote from the driver.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP-2011022738-A) (hereinafter Kaneda) in view of Kusumoto (JP-2017124771-A) (hereinafter Kusumoto) ) in further view of Hannula (US 20020115938 A1) (hereinafter Hannula) in further view of Begemann (US 20020198462 A1) (hereinafter Begemann) in further view of Kawase (JP-6199647-B2)( hereinafter Kawase).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann teaches the device as claimed in claim 1(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34, When you feel caution, mental sweating increases but instantaneous heart rate decreases; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)).
The combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann specifically fails to disclose processing unit wherein the processor is further configured to: command a driving assistance device installed on board the vehicle to intervene with the driver, depending on at least one of the following elements: the driver's perception or lack of perception of the danger determined in step c),the moment the danger was perceived by the driver, the duration of the possible phase of deceleration of the heart rate analyzed in step b), the amplitude of the possible phase of deceleration of the heart rate analyzed in step b).
However, Kawase, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about the determining of the state of a driver of a vehicle discloses a device wherein the processor is further configured to: command a driving assistance device installed on board the vehicle to intervene with the driver, depending on at least one of the following elements: the driver's perception or lack of perception of the danger determined in step c)( Kawase, page 13, line 29, when it is determined that the driver is aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is performed, and when it is determined that the driver is not aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is not performed), the moment the danger was perceived by the driver, the duration of the possible phase of deceleration of the heart rate analyzed in step b), the amplitude of the possible phase of deceleration of the heart rate analyzed in step b).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, and Begemann with Kawase’s driving assistance system which controls the driving of a vehicle when it detects the driver is aware of a danger. Kawase discloses a similar mechanism of detecting a danger and evaluating the awareness of the driver based on heartbeat rate. Furthermore, it discloses a controlling of a vehicle based the evaluation of the driver’s recognition of danger. The driver assistance system can help the driver by reducing human control of the vehicle while avoiding unnecessary alerts or actions the driver is already aware of and has responded to. Additionally, it enhances collaborative response to a danger that involves the driver and driving assistance system that will help mitigate the danger.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, Begemann, and Kawase teaches The device as claimed in claim 8(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34,caution determination; Kawase, page 13, line 29, driving control assistant; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)), further comprising the driving assistance device, wherein the indication received by the processing unit in step a) is sent by the driving assistance device( Kawase, page 2, line 34, the driving support control unit 9 controls the driving support unit 5 according to the determination result of the danger determination unit 8).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneda (JP-2011022738-A) (hereinafter Kaneda) in view of Kusumoto (JP-2017124771-A) (hereinafter Kusumoto) ) in further view of Hannula (US 20020115938 A1) (hereinafter Hannula) in further view of Begemann (US 20020198462 A1) (hereinafter Begemann) in further view of Weidl (DE-102011109564-A1)( hereinafter Weidl).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, Begemann, and Kawase teaches the device as claimed in claim 8(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34,caution determination; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Kawase, page 13, line 29, driving control assistant; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)),wherein the processor is configured to identify the driver(The driver specifying device of Kaneda is similar to the driver identification device. Kaneda, page 5, line 27, the driver specifying device 12 has a touch panel type switch arranged in the vicinity of the front panel, and different drivers are registered in advance in each switch. When the driver presses the registered switch, the driver information is output to the learning circuit) and to customize(customization has been interpreted as personalization of a driver’s state evaluation based on each individual driver. Kaneda, page 3, line 39 a driver state measurement device that measures the physical state of a driver of a vehicle, when the driver state data for each driver is stored in association with the driving state classification and the driver state data is newly detected, the same driving state A technique is known in which the driver status data related to the classification is read and compared, so that changes in the driver's status can be known in response to individual differences of individual drivers and changes in driving conditions), depending on the identification, the analysis of the heart rate implemented in step b)( Kaneda, page 3, line 47, the driver specifying(identifying) device 12 for specifying the driver at the time of measurement from among a plurality of registered drivers, A positive electrode 13 and a negative electrode 14, an electrocardiogram signal detection device 15, a pulse interval calculation circuit 16 that calculates a heart beat interval from the signal of the electrocardiogram signal detection device 15).
While the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, Begemann, and Kawase teach identification of a driver using a touch panel, and personalizing a driver state estimation for different drivers, it fails to disclose a device is configured to identify the driver using face recognition or fingerprint.
However, Weidl, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a method and device for monitoring a vehicle occupant discloses a device that is configured to identify the driver using face recognition or fingerprint(Weidl, paragraph 11, The unambiguous identification of the respective vehicle occupant, whose vital parameter values are respectively determined, can take place, for example, by means of face recognition)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, Begemann, and Kawase with Weidl’s face recognition identification system. Even though Kaneda discloses an identification of a driver using touch panel, it fails to mention a fingerprint or face recognition system to identify a specific driver. It is an obvious modification to incorporate face recognition system of Weidl that has a higher level of security for protecting personal data stored in the system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kaneda, Kusumoto, Hannula, Begemann, Kawase and Weidl teaches the device as claimed in claim 10(Kaneda, page 5, line 18, electrocardiogram signal detection device 15; Kaneda, page 1, line 6, an event detection means; Kusumoto, page 6, line 34,caution determination; Hannula, paragraph 12, in examining accepted heart beat detections, a preferably short time-window, for instance three seconds, is used; Kawase, page 13, line 29, driving control assistant; Weidl, paragraph 11, face recognition means; Begemann fig.8, two instants of heart rate measurement are performed(810,815), then difference is determined(820), and stored(822). After the storage of data, the average is calculated(830), then it determines if a new heart rate value is lower(decreasing) or higher than the standard(845)), wherein the processing unit is configured to customize(Kaneda, page 3, line 39 a driver state measurement device that measures the physical state of a driver of a vehicle, when the driver state data for each driver is stored in association with the driving state classification and the driver state data is newly detected, the same driving state A technique is known in which the driver status data related to the classification is read and compared, so that changes in the driver's status can be known in response to individual differences of individual drivers and changes in driving conditions.) the command in step d) depending on the identification(Kawase, page 13, line 29, when it is determined that the driver is aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is performed, and when it is determined that the driver is not aware of a sense of danger, vehicle driving control assistance is not performed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaneda’s customization with Kawase’s driving assistance based on the heart beat rate acquisition interval of Hannula. Kaneda discloses storing personal data for each driver for determination of irregularities in the processes of the perception of danger. Kawase has similar mechanism of determining if a driver has recognized a danger based on the heart rate data, and implementing driver assistant system. By combining Kaneda’s personalized stored data with Kawase’s heart beat evaluation mechanism, it is possible to determine difference in heart rate of a specific driver’s normal heart rate, which can help determine their perception of danger. Accordingly, when it’s determined that the driver has perceived the danger or not, it is possible to implement Kawase’s driving assistance system.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
Machiko(JP 4051813 B2) is an analogous art with heart beat rate sensor that determines the degree of danger as to whether or not the vehicle is in a dangerous state, and determines whether or not the driver is aware of the dangerous state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 5712727298. 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.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights