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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 29, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have persuasively overcome most of the 112 rejections, and the remainder were also reconsidered. As to the prior art, see the new claim mappings.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Examiner Note
There are a number of indefiniteness rejections related to the various fields in the claims because the invention is about reducing sensing in some areas, but not others. See, e.g., specification, [0009]. Thus, the examiner believes that it is very important to precisely define where the sensing is reduce versus where it is not.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation are:
“infrared measurement device” – claims 1 and 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-12 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected as a formality because the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph language in these claims does not have sufficient structure in the specification. This rejection matches the below indefiniteness rejection for the same language. Once that rejection is overcome, this one will be as well.
Claim 5 recites “determining driver condition data that describe a condition of the driver,” but this is unlimited functional claiming primarily due to the wide array of possible driver conditions.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-12 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 recite “indicate,” but this is subjective because different people can have different opinions as to whether something is indicated or not. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). One way to overcome this rejection is to recite an objective standard, such as “is.”
Claims 1 and 10-12 recite “corresponding,” but this raises the same issue as “indicates.”
Claims 1 and 12 recite “partial field,” but the claims do not provide sufficient guidance on determining what the partial field is. MPEP 2173.05(a). Here, the claims recite that it is “a partial field of a sensing region,” but there is not guidance as to how to determine which parts of the sensing region are in the partial field versus not. Additionally, there is not a recitation that the partial field is actually determined.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “a field of vision of a driver of the motor vehicle that is determined based on a viewing direction of the driver of the motor vehicle and a focus zone of eyes of the driver of the motor vehicle.” It is not clear if the “field of vision” is understood under its plain meaning (i.e., where the driver is looking) or if it is only where the driver is focusing. Further, it is unclear what the distinction is between the field of vision and the viewing direction.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-12 recite the claim elements identified in the 112(f) claim interpretation section (above) that are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The disclosure of the means plus function claim terms is primarily to the functions performed, and the Figures show boxes (i.e., they do not disclose structure). The reliance on exemplary language requires one of ordinary skill in the art to know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function(s). Reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to know what structures to use renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2181.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20140222277A1 (“Tsimhoni”)
1. (Currently Amended) A method for operating a motor vehicle having an interior camera, (Tsimhoni, [0041] “The interior sensor 118 may be implemented as a camera”)
a control device, and (Tsimhoni, abstract “A processor is in communication with the exterior sensor”)
one or more of a camera device, a radar device, a Lidar device, an ultrasound sensor, or an infrared measurement device, (Tsimhoni, [0032] “The exterior sensors 110 may be cameras, RADAR sensors, ultrasonic transducers, or other suitable sensing mechanisms as appreciated by those skilled in the art.”)
the control device including a processor and a memory storing program code, (Tsimhoni, [0031] “The processor 103 executes one or more programs”)
the method comprising:
determining, by the control device, field of vision data based on camera data of the interior camera, wherein the field of vision data indicate an angle region corresponding to a field of vision of a driver of the motor vehicle that is determined based on a viewing direction of the driver of the motor vehicle and a focus zone of eyes of the driver of the motor vehicle; (Tsimhoni, [0054] “when a driver who had been looking away from the road for some time”)
determining partial field data that indicate a partial field of a sensing region of one of the one or more of the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device in an environment of the motor vehicle, (Tsimhoni, [0032] “The at least one exterior sensor 110 senses the environment outside the vehicle. For instance, the at least one exterior sensor 110 may sense the roadway, markings on the roadway, other vehicles or objects near the vehicle 102, and/or road signs.”)
wherein the partial field of the sensing region overlaps the field of vision of the driver based on the field of vision data; and (Tsimhoni, [0032] “The at least one exterior sensor 110 senses the environment outside the vehicle. For instance, the at least one exterior sensor 110 may sense the roadway, markings on the roadway, other vehicles or objects near the vehicle 102, and/or road signs.”)
reducing sensing or evaluating of sensing data that are sensed by the one or more of the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device and that describe the partial field according to the partial field data, (Tsimhoni, [0035] “Differing environmental conditions outside the vehicle 102 may affect the sensing distance of the exterior sensor(s) 110. … As such, the processor 103 of the illustrated embodiments is configured to determine a sensing distance based at least in part on the sensed environment outside the vehicle.”)
wherein the reducing does not reduce sensing or evaluating of sensing data that are sensed by the one or more of the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device in part of the sensing region that does not include the partial field of the sensing region, and (Tsimhoni, [0035] “Differing environmental conditions outside the vehicle 102 may affect the sensing distance of the exterior sensor(s) 110. … As such, the processor 103 of the illustrated embodiments is configured to determine a sensing distance based at least in part on the sensed environment outside the vehicle.” Where Tsimhoni is still sensing teaches the claimed not reducing.)
wherein the reducing of the sensing or the evaluating of the sensing data includes at least one of
reducing a scan rate of at least one of the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device,
deactivating at least one of the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device, or (Tsimhoni, [0035] “Differing environmental conditions outside the vehicle 102 may affect the sensing distance of the exterior sensor(s) 110. … As such, the processor 103 of the illustrated embodiments is configured to determine a sensing distance based at least in part on the sensed environment outside the vehicle.” Using a shorter distance teaches the claimed deactivating because the sensor is less active. Compare with specification [0022] that deactivation can be “total” (and thus can also be partial).)
reducing a portion of the sensing data that are evaluated out of the sensing data that are sensed by the camera device, the radar device, the Lidar device, the ultrasound sensor, or the infrared measurement device. (Tsimhoni, [0035] “Differing environmental conditions outside the vehicle 102 may affect the sensing distance of the exterior sensor(s) 110. … As such, the processor 103 of the illustrated embodiments is configured to determine a sensing distance based at least in part on the sensed environment outside the vehicle.” Using a shorter distance teaches the claimed reduction in evaluation because less data is collected, and thus less is also evaluated.)
2. (Canceled)
3. (Canceled)
4. (Canceled)
6. (Canceled)
8. (Canceled)
9. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the partial field according to the partial field data is smaller than the field of vision according to the field of vision data. (Tsimhoni, [0032] “The at least one exterior sensor 110 senses the environment outside the vehicle. For instance, the at least one exterior sensor 110 may sense the roadway, markings on the roadway, other vehicles or objects near the vehicle 102, and/or road signs.”)
10. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 9, wherein a region adjacent to a beginning or end of the angle region corresponding to the field of vision of the field of vision is free of overlap with the partial field. (Tsimhoni, [0032] “The at least one exterior sensor 110 senses the environment outside the vehicle. For instance, the at least one exterior sensor 110 may sense the roadway, markings on the roadway, other vehicles or objects near the vehicle 102, and/or road signs.”)
11. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 10, wherein a size of the region of the field of vision at the beginning or end of the angle region corresponding to the of the field of vision is based on a precision of the interior camera. (Tsimhoni, [0041] “The interior sensor 118 may be implemented as a camera”)
Claim 12 is rejected as per claim 1. Additionally, Tsimhoni, abstract, teaches the claimed vehicle.
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140222277A1 (“Tsimhoni”) in view of Wikipedia’s “Blinking” article from October 1, 2021, retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blinking&oldid=1047530079 (“Wikipedia”)
5. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining driver condition data that indicate a condition of the driver, wherein the driver condition data indicate responsiveness to an object in the field of vision or changing of the field of vision due to at least one change of the viewing direction of the driver of the motor vehicle; and (Tsimhoni, [0042] “The processor 103 may then calculate an attention state of the driver”)
determining attention data that indicate a degree of attentiveness with which the driver is looking in the field of vision by applying an attention detection criterion to the driver condition data, (Tsimhoni, [0042] “For instance, the processor 103 may determine whether the driver is alert and paying attention to the roadway, whether the driver is alert and distracted, or whether the driver is asleep.”)
wherein the reducing of the sensing or the evaluating of the sensing data is performed in response to determining that the attention data lie in a given attention value range. (Tsimhoni, [0054] “Also, when a driver who had been looking away from the road for some time is trying to hand over control to the vehicle 102 to the control system 100, the driver may better understand when the control system 100 is ready to take over control of the vehicle 102.” The vehicle’s not taking over when the driver is attentive teaches the claimed reduction in evaluating sensing data.)
Tsimhoni is not relied on for the below claim language.
Wikipedia teaches wherein the attention detection criterion is based on a blinking frequency of the driver of the motor vehicle, and (Wikipedia, first section, “Blinking may have other functions since it occurs more often than necessary just to keep the eye lubricated. Researchers think blinking may help us disengage our attention; following blink onset, cortical activity decreases in the dorsal network and increases in the default-mode network, associated with internal processing.” Emphasis added.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Wikipedia to the teachings of Tsimhoni such that blinking is used to measure attention for the purpose of providing implementation details for Tsimhoni’s calculating an attention state (Tsimhoni, [0042]).
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
7. (Original) The method according to claim 5, wherein a degree of the reducing of the sensing or the evaluating of the sensing data is dependent on the attention data so determined. (Tsimhoni, [0054] “Also, when a driver who had been looking away from the road for some time is trying to hand over control to the vehicle 102 to the control system 100, the driver may better understand when the control system 100 is ready to take over control of the vehicle 102.” The vehicle’s not taking over when the driver is attentive teaches the claimed reduction in evaluating sensing data.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9460601 B2 – “Driver distraction and drowsiness warning and sleepiness reduction for accident avoidance”
US 11541891 B2 – see the claimed “distractive factor”
US 20200182957 A1 – see claim 9, deactivating sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights