DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-17 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 5/15/2023 and 12/16/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within 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 of 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 Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 10 and 15 overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action, therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
8. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered, a new rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fung et al. (US 20160001781) in view of Sobhany (US 10967873).
Regarding Claim 1, Fung discloses A method for controlling a driving assistance feature of a vehicle by a vehicle control device, the method comprising: (Fung, [Abstract] wherein disclosed is a method for controlling a vehicle system based on a drivers state)
obtaining, a state of a driver of the vehicle from a driver monitoring system (DMS) comprising one or more cameras, wherein the state of the driver comprises at least one attention parameter; (Fung, see at least [0317] wherein a camera can generate images of eye movement, facial expressions, posture, or positioning of an individual. Also see least [0380] wherein a head movement monitoring system can be used to determine if a driver is paying attention.)
in response to the state of the driver being determined as inattentive: outputting a first feedback signal to the driver using a first Human-Machine Interface (HMI); (Fung, see at least [0252] wherein warning stages can be used to provide warning to a driver to alert the driver in cases where they are not paying attention. A first warning stage of visual/audible warning can be provided. Also see [0426-0428] wherein a driver alert device is used to alert the driver if the driver safety factor is below a driver safety alert threshold. The driver alert device 1910 can output visuals, mechanical, or audio signals to alert the driver. Also see at least [0775-0777] wherein in response to the driver’s state, a warning indicator can illuminate to indicate that a vehicle is not staying within it’s lane.)
in response to the driver being non-reactive to the feedback signal: outputting a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional and controlling the driving assistance feature based on the outputted signal, (Fung, see at least [0252] wherein warning stages can be used to provide warning to a driver to alert the driver in cases where they are not paying attention. A first warning stage of visual/audible warning can be provided. If this warning stage does not get through to the driver, a second warning stage is entered wherein automatic braking could be activated. Also see [0775-0777] and Fig. 100 wherein in response to a driver’s state, a warning indicator is illuminated indicating that the vehicle is crossing a lane. If the vehicle continues exiting, a lane steering effort correction can be applied. wherein when upon determining a driver is drowsy, a second can be used if the first initial signal did not result in getting the drivers attention ** the second warning stage is being outputted indicative of the first warning not being functional of getting the attention of the driver. Also see at least Fig. 108 wherein warning types can be determined. The frequency of a warning and the intensity of an alert to warn a driver can be determined by the ECU.)
wherein controlling the driver assistance feature includes controlling one of an autonomous driving function or a semi-autonomous driving function. (Fung, see at least [0502] “ upon detecting that a driver is distracted, drowsy or otherwise inattentive, the response system 188 can control the low speed follow system 212, the cruise control system 214, the automatic cruise control system 216, the collision warning system 218, the collision mitigation braking system 220, the lane departure warning system 222, the blind spot indicator system 224 and the lane keep assist system 226 to provide protection due to the driver's lapse of attention.”)
Fung does not explicitly disclose measuring at least one reaction parameter of the driver by means of the DMS after the feedback signal has been sent,and comparing the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model to determine whether the driver is reactive to the first feedback signal or not;
However, Sohbany discloses measuring at least one reaction parameter of the driver by means of the DMS after the feedback signal has been sent, (Sohbany, see at least [0037-0041] wherein discloses if the driver is determined to be inattentive for an amount of time that exceeds predetermined intervals, it can be determined if the passenger is paying appropriate attention.)
Sohbany discloses and comparing the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model to determine whether the driver is reactive to the first feedback signal or not; (Fung, see at least [0477] identification of a driver can be used to determine a driver state. Information stored in the identified driver’s user profile can be compared to monitoring information to determine a driver’s state. ** Fung is being utilized for it’s driver user profile to determine a driver’s state. Sobhany measure parameters after an alert was outputted to determine if a driver’s attention level has changed, in which could be used in combination with the driver user profile system of Fung to teach the limitation.)
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 Fung so as to include comparing at least one measured reaction parameter to determine if a driver is inattentive after an alert in view of Sohbany with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that comparison of a measured parameter to determine a driver’s state after an alert to determine if a driver is inattentive as shown in Sohbany, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Fung and Sohbany because this would have achieved the desirable result of and compare the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model and then can output a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional to control the vehicle’s driving functions, in order to eliminate false positives and provide a reliable and robust driver monitoring system, enhancing the vehicle, driving and/or safety.
Regarding Claim 5, Fung in view of Sohbany discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the stored reaction model comprises at least one reaction parameter range, the method further comprising: (see rejection above)
Sohbany further discloses repeating the measurement of the at least one reaction parameter of the driver a plurality of times; (Sohbany, see at least [0051] wherein captured information concerning the drivers attention behavior is captured in predetermined intervals)
storing the plurality of measurements; (Sohbany, see at least Fig. 2, User Attention History Database 220)
comparing the stored plurality of measurements with the stored reaction model; (Sohbany, see at least [0018] wherein the driver attention server may compare the received information to predetermined attention thresholds.)
and updating the at least one reaction parameter range based on the comparison of the stored plurality of measurements with the stored reaction model. (Sohbany, see at least [0021] and Fig. 2, wherein information stored in driver attention server maybe accessed, retrieved, updated and added to.)
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 Fung so as to include repeating measurements of reaction parameters of the driver a plurality of times to determine a driver’s behavior in view of Sohbany with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that repeating capturing driver attention behavior as shown in Sohbany, as required by the claim would further allow the system of Fung to determine if a drivers attention behavior changes after an alert. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Fung and Sohbany because this would have achieved the desirable result of and compare the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model and then can output a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional to control the vehicle’s driving functions, in order to eliminate false positives and provide a reliable and robust driver monitoring system, enhancing the vehicle, driving and/or safety.
Regarding Claim 6, Fung in view of Sohbany discloses The method according to claim 5, wherein each of the at least one reaction parameter range being associated with an individual reaction parameter, the method further comprising: (see rejection above)
Sohbany further discloses updating each of the at least one reaction parameter range based on the comparison of the stored plurality of measurements with the stored reaction model. (Sohbany, see at least [0021] wherein information stored in a driver attention server may be accessed, retrieved, updated and added too.)
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 Fung so as to include updating each of the at least one reaction parameter range based on the comparison of the stored plurality of measurements with the stored reaction model in view of Sohbany with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that updating reaction parameter ranges based on the comparison on stored measurements as shown in Sohbany, as required by the claim would further allow the system of Fung to determine if a drivers attention behavior changes after an alert. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Fung and Sohbany because this would have achieved the desirable result of and compare the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model and then can output a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional to control the vehicle’s driving functions, in order to eliminate false positives and provide a reliable and robust driver monitoring system, enhancing the vehicle, driving and/or safety.
Regarding Claim 8, Fung in view of Sohbany discloses The method according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the at least one reaction parameter is selected from a group comprising a gaze direction, a change in gaze direction, and a speed of change of gaze direction. (Fung, see at least [0378-0379, and 0840] wherein the components of an eye/facial movement monitor system (pupil dilation, degree of eye or eyelid closure, eyebrow movement, gaze tracking, blinking, and squinting, among others. Eye movement can also include eye vectoring including the magnitude and direction of eye movement/eye gaze.) can be used to determine a driver’s state.)
Regarding Claim 9, Fung in view of Sohbany A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a vehicle control system, the one or more programs comprising instructions for performing the method according to claim 1. (Fung in view of Sohbany discloses the method according to Claim 1, and Fung further discloses, see at least [0297] processors in which are encoded as executable instructions in a computer readable medium including a storage device and/or a memory device.)
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards a vehicle control device for controlling a driving assistance feature of a vehicle that recites similar limitations performed by the a method for controlling a driving assistance feature of a vehicle of claim 1. The cited portions of Fung in view of Sohbany discloses used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of 8, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claim 14 is rejected over the same rational as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, Fung discloses A vehicle comprising: (Fung, [Abstract] wherein disclosed is a method for controlling a vehicle system based on a drivers state)
a driver monitoring system (DMS) for measuring eye and head position, attention and fatigue of a driver of the vehicle, wherein the DMS comprises one or more cameras; (Fung, see at least [0317] wherein a camera can generate images of eye movement, facial expressions, posture, or positioning of an individual. Also see least [0380] wherein a head movement monitoring system can be used to determine if a driver is paying attention.)
and a vehicle control device for controlling a driving assistance feature of the vehicle, the vehicle control device comprising a control circuit configured to: (Fung, [Abstract] wherein disclosed is a method for controlling a vehicle system based on a drivers state)
obtain a state of the driver of the vehicle from the driver monitoring system (DMS), the state of the driver comprising at least one attention parameter; (Fung, see at least [0317] wherein a camera can generate images of eye movement, facial expressions, posture, or positioning of an individual. Also see least [0380] wherein a head movement monitoring system can be used to determine if a driver is paying attention.)
in response to the state of the driver being determined as inattentive: output a first feedback signal to the driver using a first Human-Machine Interface (HMI); (Fung, see at least [0252] wherein warning stages can be used to provide warning to a driver to alert the driver in cases where they are not paying attention. A first warning stage of visual/audible warning can be provided. Also see [0426-0428] wherein a driver alert device is used to alert the driver if the driver safety factor is below a driver safety alert threshold. The driver alert device 1910 can output visuals, mechanical, or audio signals to alert the driver. Also see at least [0775-0777] wherein in response to the driver’s state, a warning indicator can illuminate to indicate that a vehicle is not staying within it’s lane.)
in response to the driver being non-reactive to the feedback signal: output a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional and control the driving assistance feature based on the outputted signal, (Fung, see at least [0252] wherein warning stages can be used to provide warning to a driver to alert the driver in cases where they are not paying attention. A first warning stage of visual/audible warning can be provided. If this warning stage does not get through to the driver, a second warning stage is entered wherein automatic braking could be activated. Also see [0775-0777] and Fig. 100 wherein in response to a driver’s state, a warning indicator is illuminated indicating that the vehicle is crossing a lane. If the vehicle continues exiting, a lane steering effort correction can be applied. wherein when upon determining a driver is drowsy, a second can be used if the first initial signal did not result in getting the drivers attention ** the second warning stage is being outputted indicative of the first warning not being functional of getting the attention of the driver. Also see at least Fig. 108 wherein warning types can be determined. The frequency of a warning and the intensity of an alert to warn a driver can be determined by the ECU.)
wherein controlling the driver assistance feature includes controlling one of an autonomous driving function or a semi- autonomous driving function (Fung, see at least [0502] “ upon detecting that a driver is distracted, drowsy or otherwise inattentive, the response system 188 can control the low speed follow system 212, the cruise control system 214, the automatic cruise control system 216, the collision warning system 218, the collision mitigation braking system 220, the lane departure warning system 222, the blind spot indicator system 224 and the lane keep assist system 226 to provide protection due to the driver's lapse of attention.”)
However, Sohbany discloses measure at least one reaction parameter of the driver by means of the DMS after the feedback signal has been sent, (Sohbany, see at least [0037-0041] wherein discloses if the driver is determined to be inattentive for an amount of time that exceeds predetermined intervals, it can be determined if the passenger is paying appropriate attention.)
Sohbany discloses and compare the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model to determine whether the driver is reactive to the first feedback signal or not; (Fung, see at least [0477] identification of a driver can be used to determine a driver state. Information stored in the identified driver’s user profile can be compared to monitoring information to determine a driver’s state. ** Fung is being utilized for it’s driver user profile to determine a driver’s state. Sobhany measure parameters after an alert was outputted to determine if a driver’s attention level has changed, in which could be used in combination with the driver user profile system of Fung to teach the limitation.)
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 Fung so as to include comparing at least one measured reaction parameter to determine if a driver is inattentive after an alert in view of Sohbany with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that comparison of a measured parameter to determine a driver’s state after an alert to determine if a driver is inattentive as shown in Fung, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Fung and Sohbany because this would have achieved the desirable result of and compare the measured at least one reaction parameter with a stored reaction model and then can output a signal indicative of the first HMI being non-functional to control the vehicle’s driving functions, in order to eliminate false positives and provide a reliable and robust driver monitoring system, enhancing the vehicle, driving and/or safety.
Regarding Claim 16, Fung in view of Sohbany discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising (see rejection above)
outputting a second feedback signal using a second HMI different from the first HMI. (Fung, see at least Fig. 72 wherein the response system can receive drowsiness information. If it is determined the driver is drowsy, tactile stimuli can be provided to the driver, then lights/indicators are turned on, then sounds can be generated to assist in getting the driver to pay attention.)
Regarding Claim 17, Fung in view of Sohbany discloses The vehicle of claim 15, further caused to (see rejection above)
output a second feedback signal using a second HMI different from the first HMI. (Fung, see at least Fig. 72 wherein the response system can receive drowsiness information. If it is determined the driver is drowsy, tactile stimuli can be provided to the driver, then lights/indicators are turned on, then sounds can be generated to assist in getting the driver to pay attention.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 7 and 11 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.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are dependent upon an objected claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664