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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-19, 28, 32, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mena Benito et al. (US 2019/0382025) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2022/0233119).
Regarding claims 1, 16-18, 19, 28, 32, 39, Mena Benito discloses a system for assessing cognitive decline (abstract), the system comprising: a sensor suite configured to be used in conjunction with a vehicle, the sensor suite (page 5, [0034]) comprising: one or more sensors configured to sense one or more physiological signals of a driver while the driver grips the steering wheel and operates the vehicle (page 5, [0034]); the one or more sensed physiological signals into physiological data representative of one or more physiological states of the driver while they operate the vehicle (page 5, [0034]); and an imaging device configured to capture image data representative of the vehicle within an environment of use (page 11, [0065]); and a computing device comprising one or more processors configured to: receive the physiological data and the image data from the sensor suite (page 11, [0065]). Claim 19, a communication interface to transfer the physiological data and the image data to a computing device (page 11, [0065]).
Mena Benito discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose one or more converters configured to convert and determine one or more biomarkers representative of cognitive decline based upon the physiological data and the image data.
However, Shelton, IV discloses one or more converters configured to convert and determine one or more biomarkers representative of cognitive decline based upon the physiological data and the image data (page 39, [0458]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Shelton, IV within the system of Mena Benito in order to reduce the risk of vehicle mishaps due to hypoglycemic events thereby improving the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least
one of an electrodermal activity sensor, a heart rate sensor, an electromyography sensor, or
a gripping force sensor (page 5, [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Mena Benito discloses wherein the sensor suite is configured to: sense one or more physiological signals of the driver while the driver grips the steering wheel to operate the vehicle; convert the one or more sensed physiological signals into physiological data representative of one or more physiological states of the driver while they operate the vehicle; capture image data representative of the vehicle within an environment of use (page 5, [0034]); and communicate the physiological data and the image data to a computing device (fig. 1-fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the biomarkers by: determining, based upon the image data, one or more driving behaviors of the driver; determining, based upon the physiological data, one or more physiological states of the driver that temporally overlap the one or more driving behaviors; and determining the one or more biomarkers based upon the driving behaviors and the physiological states (fig. 1-fig. 4; page 5, [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more processors are further
configured to: determine, based upon the image data, one or more driving conditions; and
determine the one or more biomarkers based upon the driving behaviors, the driving
conditions, and the physiological states (fig. 1-fig. 4; page 5, [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more driving behaviors include
at least one of a driving lane deviation, an inappropriate inter-vehicle distance, or a missed
stop sign event (lane changing in page 2, [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more driving behaviors are determined using one or more computer vision algorithms (fig. 1-fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Mena Benito discloses wherein the one or more driving behaviors are
determined using one or more trained machine learning models (fig. 1-fig. 4).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mena Benito et al. (US 2019/0382025) in view of Shelton, IV et al. (US 2022/0233119) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iguchi et al. (US 2017/0166236).
Regarding claim 7, Mena Benito and Shelton disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more sensors are implemented on one or more elongated flexible substrates adapted to be secured to the steering wheel.
However, Iguchi discloses wherein the one or more sensors are implemented on one or more elongated flexible substrates adapted to be secured to the steering wheel (page 1, [0010]; page 3, [0056]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Iguchi within Mena Benito and Shelton in order to reduce the risk of vehicle mishaps due to hypoglycemic events thereby improving the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Mena Benito, Shelton and Iguchi disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Iguchi further discloses wherein the one or more elongated flexible substrates are integrated into a steering wheel sleeve or cover adapted to be installed on the steering wheel to secure the one or more elongated flexible substrate to the steering wheel (page 1, [0010]; page 3, [0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Mena Benito, Shelton and Iguchi disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Iguchi further discloses wherein the one or more elongated flexible substrates are adapted to be directly affixed to the steering wheel (page 1, [0010]; page 3, [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with all the limitations in the claims, the prior arts fail to teach or make obvious:
wherein the sensor suite comprises a flexible elongated strip comprising at least a first layer and a second layer; wherein the first layer comprises a pair of interdigitated electrodes configured to implement an electrodermal activity sensor; and wherein the second layer is configured to implement a force sensor, the second layer comprising: a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer, and a force-sensitive layer between the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer, the force-sensitive layer having an electrical resistance that varies with a force applied to the force sensing layer by the first and second electrode layers in response to a force exerted on the steering wheel by one or more of the driver's hands.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malchano et al. (US 2018/0133507) discloses methods………..stimulations.
Shafer et al. (US 2008/0286330) discloses methods……the brain.
Simon et al. (US 2011/0125203) discloses magnetic…..therapy.
Benz et al. (US 2011/0202000) discloses anti-amyloid….molecules.
Ben David (US 2011/0043350) discloses method………decrement.
Nelson et al. (US 2014/0081347) discloses assessing……..brain activity.
Carlson et al. (US 2013/0053722) discloses method…..stimulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
January 22, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685