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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 1 December 2025 and the After Final amendment filed on 30 October 2025.
This office action is made Non Final.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
The objection to the specification/abstract has been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/25 has been entered.
Specification
The amendment to the specification/abstract filed on 10/30/25 has been accepted and entered. The amendment to the specification meets the requirements/guidelines as specified in MPEP 714(B).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al (US20220334641, 2022) in further view of Grard et al (US20240034358, EFD 7/28/2020)
As per independent claim 1, Farooq discloses a vehicle control system for use with a semi-autonomous vehicle (0030), said vehicle control system comprising:
a hazard-detection system comprising: a hazard-detection memory having hazard-detection instructions stored therein; and a hazard-detection processor configured to execute the hazard-detection instructions to cause said hazard-detection system to: detect a hazard; and output a hazard-detection signal based on the detected hazard;(0030, 0035: discloses sensors that senses hazards such as pedestrians and parked cars. Sensor includes LIDAR which is a form of a processor. Once sensed, the vehicle displays and highlights of pedestrians and parked cars to the user. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would realize that instructions for determining and displaying the hazard information would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed to performing these functionalities.)
an eye-tracking system comprising: an eye-tracking memory having eye-tracking instructions stored therein; and an eye-tracking processor configured to execute the eye-tracking instructions to cause the eye-tracking system to: detect where a driver of the semi-autonomous vehicle is looking; and output an eye-tracking signal based on where the driver is looking; (0024, 0037: discloses an eye sensor that analyzes where the user is looking while steering/driving an semi-autonomous vehicle (0030). Machine learning, image processing and mathematical algorithms can be used to process the captured image and determine the gaze direction and gaze point of the driver. (form of a processor) 0037, 0041: discloses where the user is looking and is aware and outputs a signal where the driver is looking. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining where the user is looking and outputting the gazing information would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor in order to perform these functionalities)
a brain-function system comprising: a brain-function memory having brain-function instructions stored therein; and a brain-function processor configured to execute the brain-function instructions to cause the brain-function system to: detect a parameter of a brain of the driver; and output a brain-function signal based on the detected parameter; and (0025-0027: EEG sensor that senses brainwave activity. 0035: determines if the driver is aware of the warnings or objects/hazards in front of the vehicle. EEG data is compared with stored EEG data to determine if the driver is aware of the warnings or objects/hazards in front of the vehicle. In response the processing circuitry performs a control action based on the EEG detected data. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining if the driver is aware of the warning and/or highlighted would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor, such as the processing circuitry, in order to perform these functionalities)
a driving-control system comprising: a driving-control memory having driving-control instructions stored therein; and a driving-control processor configured to execute the driving-control instructions to cause the driving-control system to: determine whether the driver comprehends the hazard based on the hazard-detection signal, the eye-tracking signal and the brain-function signal; (0035-0037, 0041: determines if the driver is aware based on the detected hazard, the detected eye gaze, and detected EEG data; 0036 discloses processing circuitry to perform the determine if the user is aware. In addition, 0032, 0050 discloses a memory. One of a skilled artisan would have realized instructions for determining if the user is aware of the warning and/or highlighted based the eye gaze and determined EEG data would require pre-stored instructions be stored and executed by a processor, such as the processing circuitry, in order to perform these functionalities)
and operate in: a driver-controlled state so as to enable the driver to control at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof; and a driving-control-system-controlled state so as to enable the driving-control system to control the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof (0006, 0029: the visual stimulus (warning/highlighted cars) is displayed as the user operates the steering wheel. 0036, 0042: If it’s determined that driver is not aware of the warnings and/or highlight obstacles being displayed, then the processing circuitry of vehicle takes control of the steering, from the driver, to perform a steering action OR controls the vehicle to stop (form of braking). Furthermore, if it determines the user is aware of the warning and/or highlighted cars, the display of the warning and/or highlighted cars ceases. Therefore, one of skilled artisan would have realized that since the warnings and images decrease, then the processing circuitry does not take control from the driver, as explained above, and lets the driver continue driving as is which includes steering the vehicle, without the processing circuitry control, to avoid pedestrian or a parked car if needed.)
Furthermore, Farooq discloses a memory having instructions and a processor executing instructions (0032, 0050). In addition, Farooq discloses if the driver is aware or not aware of the hazard ahead and determines the predetermined response accordingly. Farooq et al discloses that the vehicle automatically steers away or stops after it determines the driver is not aware/paying attention. (0036) Thus, Farooq appears to disclose some form of response time threshold related to a reaction time since one of a skilled artisan would realize that the driver wouldn’t be able to react in time if the driver isn’t paying attention. However, Farooq fails to disclose a memory having threshold response time data related to a reaction time stored therein; and a system controller: determine a time of collision of the semi-autonomous vehicle with the detected hazard; and compare the time of collision with the threshold response time data.
However, Grard et al discloses the use of an electronic control unit (ECU) calculating the time to collision (TTC) of a semi-autonomous vehicle to and the detected object (hazard). (0084, 0103, 0136) Then the ECU compares the TTC with a threshold (form of threshold response time data) to determine if the TTC is greater than or less than the threshold and perform an action based on the comparison. (0106-108, 0136; FIG. 8) Each threshold is a select point in time until the vehicle collides with the object. The first threshold (S1) is at 2 seconds, the second threshold (S2) is at 1.4 seconds, and the third threshold (s3) is at 1 second. These thresholds indicate the amount of time left for the vehicle or for the driver in the vehicle to react appropriately based on the determined circumstances. In other words, the thresholds are used for the amount of time the vehicle has to perform an action (form of a reaction time), either by the driver or the vehicle automatically, before impact. For example, if the TTC is before threshold S1, the driver is in control on making any decision in which one of a skilled artisan would have realized the driver has plenty of time to avoid the object (plenty of time to react). (0106) If the determined TTC is between S1 and s2, the vehicle will warn the driver to perform an action quickly to avoid the object which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that the reaction time for the driver to respond is less than previous (with threshold s1) and the driver would (have or need to) react quickly. (0107, FIG 8) If the TTC is between S2 and s3, then the vehicle triggers the braking of the vehicle automatically which one of a skilled artisan would have realized that there isn’t enough time for the driver to react in time. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized Grard discloses at least a threshold of if the human driver has the ability or enough time to react on their own. Thus, Grard discloses threshold response time data related to a reaction time. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that an ECU comprises a processor and a memory. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining a TTC and/or comparing the calculated TTC with a threshold would require pre-stored instructions and threshold data be stored and executed by a processor, such as the ECU, in order to perform these functionalities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Grard et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing a system for assisting with driving a vehicle that makes it possible to avoid a collision with an object that is an obstacle, in the event that the speed of the vehicle is too high for it to be able to be braked in time (0162-0165)
As per dependent claim 2, Farooq et al discloses a warning system configured to provide a warning related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system controlled state. (FIG 3; 0035-0036: display warning and highlighted images of objects)
As per dependent claim 3, Farooq et al discloses wherein the warning system comprises a display configured to display an image related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, braking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system state (FIG 3; 0035-0036: displays warning and highlighted images of objects; flashing warning and images)
As per dependent claim 4, Farooq et al discloses wherein said display comprises a head up display. (0023: a transparent display can be a dual-sided transparent display that allows a user of the device disposed in a vehicle, e.g., a driver, to view enhanced or augmented visual stimulus displayed thereon; form of a HUD)
As per dependent claim 5, Farooq et al discloses wherein said warning system comprises a speaker configured to output an audible warning related to said driving-control system controlling the at least one of steering of the semi-autonomous vehicle, breaking of the semi-autonomous vehicle, and a combination thereof when said driving-control system is operating in the driving-control system controlled state. (0036, 0042: sound is played as the vehicle is automatically steered away)
As per independent claims 8 and 15, Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Farooq et al discloses a medium (0032, 0055)
As per dependent claims 9-12 and 16-19, Claims 9-12 and 16-19 recite similar limitations as in Claims 2-5 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al in further view of Grard et al in further view of Elkins et al (US20200073379, 2020)
As per dependent claim 6, the cited art fails to specifically disclose determine whether the semi-autonomous vehicle has cleared the hazard; and operate in the driver-controlled state if the semi-autonomous vehicle has cleared the hazard and when previously operating in the driving-control-system-controlled state. However, Elkins discloses the vehicle automatically taking control of the semi-autonomous vehicle to avoid an obstacle when the operator is not paying attention and misses the presence of the obstacle. Once the vehicle autonomously avoids the obstacle, the vehicle returns control of the vehicle to the driver after confirming the driver is ready. (0022,0024, 0034-0035, 0037)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Elkins et al since it would have provided the benefit of significantly increases overall safety by being able to receive autonomous control automatically and not return manual control to the operator of until the operator demonstrates that they are engaged and able to safely take manual control (0049)
As per dependent claims 13 and 20, Claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations as in Claim 6 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farooq et al in further view of Grard et al in further view of Akamatsu et al (JP6472709B) (Examiner previously provided an English translation of JP6472709B which the paragraphs disclosed below reference to)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose detect a gamma power in a visual cortex part of the brain as the parameter of the brain of the driver. However, Akamatsu et al discloses taking gamma band reading from the visual cortex of the brain and detecting the intensity of the gamma band. (0008, 0015; Claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Akamatsu since it would have provided the benefit of provide guidance on safe driving tailored to specific characteristics and to promote license return (0009)
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recite similar limitations as in Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 20-21, in regards to independents claim 1, 8, and 15, Applicant argues that the cited art, Farooq and Grard et al, mainly Grard, does not teach the limitation/subject matter: threshold response time data related to a reaction time. Applicant argues that Farooq does not disclose a response time threshold. Therefore, Farooq fails to disclose threshold response time data related to a reaction time. Furthermore, Applicant argues that Grard teaches thresholds, but does not disclose to what parameter any threshold is related. Therefore, Applicant argues that Grard does not disclose that any threshold is threshold response time data related to a reaction time either. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states Grard et al does not teach the limitations by merely summarizing the Grard et al reference by based on the combination of a few citations, and merely concludes that Grard et al does not teach the argued limitations. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of each of the teachings of Macrae by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Grard et al is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Applicant merely argues that sections of Grard et al does not teach the argued limitations without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. In other words, Applicant argues does not argue how the cited sections of Grard et al does not teach the argued limitations based on the current language. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating each reference, alone, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitations.
Based on the language, the language is broad on a number of elements. In regards to the limitation, “…threshold response time data related to a reaction time” the language is silent on what exactly is “related to reaction time”. The language provides no clarification or explanation on what the “reaction time” is or what is means by “related to reaction time”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Thus, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of Applicant’s specification, of the language of the limitations, Farooq discloses if the driver is aware or not aware of the hazard ahead and determines the predetermined response accordingly. Farooq et al discloses that the vehicle automatically steers away or stops after it determines the driver is not aware/paying attention. (0036) Thus, Farooq appears to disclose some form of response time threshold related to a reaction time since one of a skilled artisan would realize that the driver wouldn’t be able to react in time if the driver isn’t paying attention. However, Farooq discloses a memory having threshold response time data related to a reaction time stored therein; and a system controller: determine a time of collision of the semi-autonomous vehicle with the detected hazard; and compare the time of collision with the threshold response time data.
However, Grard et al discloses the use of an electronic control unit (ECU) calculating the time to collision (TTC) of a semi-autonomous vehicle to and the detected object (hazard). (0084, 0103, 0136) Then the ECU compares the TTC with a threshold (form of threshold response time data) to determine if the TTC is greater than or less than the threshold and perform an action based on the comparison. (0106-108, 0136; FIG. 8) Each threshold is a select point in time until the vehicle collides with the object. The first threshold (S1) is at 2 seconds, the second threshold (S2) is at 1.4 seconds, and the third threshold (s3) is at 1 second. These thresholds indicate the amount of time left for the vehicle or for the driver in the vehicle to react appropriately based on the determined circumstances. In other words, the thresholds are used to the amount of time the vehicle has to perform an action (form of a reaction time), either by the driver or the vehicle automatically, before impact. For example, the TTC is before threshold S1, the driver is in control on making any decision in which a skilled artisan would realized the driver has plenty of time to avoid the object (plenty of time to react). (0106) If the determined TTC is between S1 and s2, the vehicle will warn the driver to perform an action quickly to avoid the object which a skilled artisan would realized that the reaction time for the driver to respond is less than previous (with threshold s1) and the driver would react quickly. (0107, FIG 8) If the TTC is between S2 and s3, then the vehicle triggers the braking of the vehicle automatically which a skilled artisan would realize that there isn’t enough time for the driver to react in time. Thus, one of a skilled artisan would have realized Grard discloses at least a threshold if the human driver has the ability or enough time to react on their own. Thus, Grard discloses threshold response time data related to a reaction time. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that an ECU comprises a processor and a memory. In addition, one of a skilled artisan would have realized that instructions for determining a TTC and/or comparing the calculated TTC with a threshold would require pre-stored instructions and threshold data be stored and executed by a processor, such as the ECU, in order to perform these functionalities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the cited art with the cited feature(s) of Grard et al since it would have provided the benefit of providing a system for assisting with driving a vehicle that makes it possible to avoid a collision with an object that is an obstacle, in the event that the speed of the vehicle is too high for it to be able to be braked in time (0162-0165)
Thus, the cited art teaches the argued limitation(s)/subject matter.
All other arguments on pages 21-24 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights