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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 09/19/2025. Claims 1-19 are examined and pending. Claims 1-9 and 11-15, are currently amended and claims 16-19 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the claim objection(s) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Step 2A of the United States Patent & Trademark Office's current patent-subject- matter-eligibility test requires a determination of whether a claim is "directed to" an abstract idea. Under the United States Patent & Trademark Office 2019 Guidelines, revised Step 2A requires the following determinations: (Prong 1) whether the claim recites a judicial exception; and (Prong 2) whether a recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. (Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 4, page 50 (January 7, 2019)). A claim is not "directed to" a judicial exception if the judicial exception "is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception" under Prong 2. (Id. at 50).
Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A
According to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A, the "directed to" inquiry should focus on "what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art" and should avoid "overgeneralizing claims" in the patent-subject-matter-eligibility analysis. (TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., Case Nos. 2019-2192, 2019-2258 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2020), citations omitted). In other words, reducing the claims to a high level of abstraction would essentially ensure "that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the instant matter, the amended independent claims are directed to various embodiments for, amongst other features: calculating, based on driving information, numerical values indicating whether each of a plurality of cognitive functions of a driver is high or low; analyzing the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, with the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to a plurality of different brain functions; and, in a first case where an analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a state of being dangerous, activating a driving assist mode for driving assistance, with the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver.
The Mental Process grouping is characterized by concepts that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
In the instant matter, as generally discussed above, the amended independent claims of the present application generally relate to various embodiments for activating a driving assist mode for driving assistance, with such driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver.
In this regard, as discussed and agreed during the Telephone Interview, Applicant respectfully submits that the "human mind" cannot "reasonably and practically" perform such features, as now recited by the amended independent claims. Thus, for these reasons, it is submitted that the amended independent claims are not "directed to" any Mental Process under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite calculate, based on the driving information, numerical values indicating whether each of a plurality of cognitive functions of the driver is high or low; analyze the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to a plurality of different brain functions. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a hardware processor” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as driving information, driving behaviors, biological and cognitive information of the driver could calculate numerical values indicating whether each of a plurality of cognitive functions of the driver is high or low and analyze the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to a plurality of different brain functions. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Applicant Additionally to and independently of the above, should the claims be found to be "directed to" an abstract idea under Prong 1 of Revised Step 2A (which Applicant respectfully submits they are not), Applicant submits that the claims would necessarily incorporate such recited judicial exception (if any) into a practical application thereof. That is, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has specifically indicated that the following may be indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. See MPEP2106.05(a); or applying/using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In the instant matter, it is submitted that the claims integrate any judicial exception to which the claims may be directed into such practical application(s) thereof under Prong 2 of revised Step 2A.
For example, the amended independent claims activate a driving assist mode for driving assistance in a first case where an analysis result indicates that at least one of a plurality of cognitive functions is in a state of being dangerous. Applicant respectfully submits that such features, as recited by amended independent claim 1, improve the technical field (as the prior art documents fail to disclose or render obvious such specifically described features) and/or at least amount to meaningful limits of the claims.
In view of the above, it is submitted that the amended independent claims of the present application (as well as the claim dependent therefrom) are not "directed to" any judicial exception, include additional features which would amount to a practical application of any such judicial exception, and comprise patent-eligible subject matter. As such, it is submitted that the grounds of the above-captioned rejection at least no longer exist, and it is requested that the rejection be withdrawn in the next Official communication.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of detect driving information indicating at least one of driving behavior for a vehicle by a driver, biological information of the driver during driving, and behavior of the vehicle during driving; output information about an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the numerical values; and activating a driving assist node for driving assistance, the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver a hardware processor connected to a memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded. The detecting step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (driving information, driving behavior(s), biological and cognitive information of the driver, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The activating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) which encompasses manual activating/executing a manual operation performed by a driver and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a hardware processor connected to a memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 24 under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “”he hardware processor” in line 3” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “the hardware processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite calculate, based on the driving information, numerical values indicating whether each of a plurality of cognitive functions of the driver is high or low; analyze the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to a plurality of different brain functions. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind.
That is, other than reciting “a hardware processor” nothing in the claim(s) limitation(s) preclude the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim(s) limitations encompass a person looking at data such as driving information, driving behaviors, biological and cognitive information of the driver could calculate numerical values indicating whether each of a plurality of cognitive functions of the driver is high or low and analyze the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to a plurality of different brain functions. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of detect driving information indicating at least one of driving behavior for a vehicle by a driver, biological information of the driver during driving, and behavior of the vehicle during driving; output information about an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the numerical values; and activating a driving assist node for driving assistance, the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver a hardware processor connected to a memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded. The detecting step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (driving information, driving behavior(s), biological and cognitive information of the driver, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The activating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) which encompasses manual activating/executing a manual operation performed by a driver and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a hardware processor connected to a memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which programmed instructions are recorded is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the detecting, outputting, activating/executing steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-11, 13, and 15-19 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda Makoto (JP2018126190A) in view of Talamonti et al (US 20210290134 A) in view of Aluf et al (US 20220095975 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of JP2018126190A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Makoto discloses a driving characteristic determination device comprising a hardware processor connected to a memory (see at least [0095]), the hardware processor being configured to: detect driving information indicating at least one of driving behavior for a vehicle by a driver, biological information of the driver during driving, and behavior of the vehicle (see at least [0051], [0056-0060], and [0068-0071]); calculate, on the basis of the driving information, numerical values indicating whether a cognitive function of the driver is high or low (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]); analyze the numerical values indicating whether the cognitive function is high or low (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]); and output information about an analysis result obtained by the analysis of the numerical values (see at least [0085]).
However, Makoto do not specifically disclose wherein the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to one or more different brain functions.
Talamonti teaches wherein the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to one or more different brain functions (see at least [0015-0017], [0025-0026], [0031-0034], and [0050-0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Talamonti wherein the numerical values being analyzed as cognitive function characteristics relative to one or more different brain functions. This would be done to increase driver’s safety and avoid casualties in different driving situations (see Talamonti para 0001-0003).
Moreover, Makoto as modified by Talamonti do not specifically teach in a first case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a state of being dangerous, activate a driving assist mode for driving assistance, the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver.
Aluf teaches in a first case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a state of being dangerous (see at least [0019-0020], [0047], [0090-0093], and [0165]), activate a driving assist mode for driving assistance, the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver (see at least [0019-0020], [0047], [0090-0093], and [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aluf wherein, in a first case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a state of being dangerous, activate a driving assist mode for driving assistance, the driving assist mode executing a driving operation performed by the driver. This would be done to increase a driver’s safety and reduce road hazards (see Aluf para 0004).
With respect to claim 2, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to calculate the numerical values from the driving information based on a correspondence relation between the driving information and the numerical values indicating whether each of the plurality of cognitive functions is high or low, the correspondence relation being set in advance (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]).
With respect to claim 3, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to detect the driving information based on a driving environment of the vehicle (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]), the driving information indicating at least one of the driving behavior for the vehicle by the driver, the biological information of the driver during the driving, and the behavior of the vehicle during the driving that are expected in the driving environment (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]).
With respect to claim 8, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform analysis of the numerical values based on the driving information and a driving behavior model having been learned in advance (see at least [0085]).
With respect to claim 9, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform the analysis of the numerical values based on the driving information and a driving behavior model having been learned in advance (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]).
With respect to claim 10, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor is further configured to specify the driver (see at least [0049]).
With respect to claim 11, Makoto wherein the hardware processor is further configured to output a notification about temporal changes of the plurality of cognitive functions of the driver (see at least [0052] and [0085]).
With respect to claims 12 and 13 they are claims drawn to a driving characteristic determination method that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective driving characteristics device claims 1 and 2. As such, claims 12 and 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective driving characteristics device claims 1 and 2 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 14 and 15 they are claims drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium recite substantially the same limitations as the respective driving characteristics device claims 1 and 2. As such, claims 14 and 15 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective driving characteristics device claims 1 and 2 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 16, Makoto as modified by Talamonti do not specifically teach wherein the driving operation, executed by the driving assist mode, includes at least one of setting an upper speed of the vehicle, activating an inter-vehicle distance keeping function, activating a lane departure preventing function, or activating a parking assist function.
Aluf teaches wherein the driving operation, executed by the driving assist mode, includes at least one of setting an upper speed of the vehicle, activating an inter-vehicle distance keeping function, activating a lane departure preventing function, or activating a parking assist function (see at least [0019-0020], [0047], [0090-0093], and [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aluf wherein the driving operation, executed by the driving assist mode, includes at least one of setting an upper speed of the vehicle, activating an inter-vehicle distance keeping function, activating a lane departure preventing function, or activating a parking assist function. This would be done to increase a driver’s safety and reduce road hazards (see Aluf para 0004).
With respect to claim 17, Makoto as modified by Talamonti do not specifically teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, in a second case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a second state of requiring attention, activate a training mode for driving assistance by information presentation.
Aluf teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, in a second case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a second state of requiring attention, activate a training mode for driving assistance by information presentation (see at least [0012], [0083], [0137], [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aluf wherein the hardware processor is further configured to, in a second case where the analysis result indicates that at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions is in a second state of requiring attention, activate a training mode for driving assistance by information presentation. This would be done to increase a driver’s safety and reduce road hazards (see Aluf para 0004).
With respect to claim 19, Makoto discloses wherein the hardware processor determines that the analysis result indicates the first case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a threshold (see at least [0076-0084], [0092], and [0105-0107]).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda Makoto (JP2018126190A) in view of Talamonti et al (US 20210290134 A) in view of Aluf et al (US 20220095975 A1) in view of Sobhany (US 20200239007 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of JP2018126190A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 4, Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf do not specifically teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the cognitive function characteristics, from among a plurality of functions of the vehicle, whether to activate a first function of the driving assistance by information presentation for suppressing further decline of the plurality of cognitive functions of the driver, or activate a second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation, a determination being performed based on a comparison between at least one threshold and the numerical values.
Sobhany teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the cognitive function characteristics, from among a plurality of functions of the vehicle, whether to activate a first function of the driving assistance by information presentation for suppressing further decline of the plurality of cognitive functions of the driver, or activate a second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation, a determination being performed based on a comparison between at least one threshold and the numerical values (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sobhany wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the cognitive function characteristics, from among a plurality of functions of the vehicle, whether to activate a first function of the driving assistance by information presentation for suppressing further decline of the plurality of cognitive functions of the driver, or activate a second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation, a determination being performed based on a comparison between at least one threshold and the numerical values. This would be done to reduce safety hazards ranging from trivial to catastrophic and potentially fatal (see Sobhany para 0003).
With respect to claim 5, Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf do not specifically teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for a first cognitive function smaller than a first threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the first cognitive function, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the first cognitive function.
Sobhany teaches teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for a first cognitive function smaller than a first threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the first cognitive function, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the first cognitive function (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sobhany teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for a first cognitive function smaller than a first threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the first cognitive function, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the first cognitive function. This would be done to reduce safety hazards ranging from trivial to catastrophic and potentially fatal (see Sobhany para 0003).
. With respect to claim 6, Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf do not specifically teach wherein the hardware processor is further configured to activate, for a second cognitive function smaller than a second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the second cognitive function, the second threshold being smaller than a first threshold, and activate, for a third cognitive function smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the third cognitive function.
Sobhany teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to activate, for a second cognitive function smaller than a second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the second cognitive function, the second threshold being smaller than a first threshold (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]), and activate, for a third cognitive function smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the third cognitive function (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sobhany wherein the hardware processor is further configured to activate, for a second cognitive function smaller than a second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the second cognitive function, the second threshold being smaller than a first threshold, and activate, for a third cognitive function smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold among the plurality of cognitive functions, the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the third cognitive function. This would be done to reduce safety hazards ranging from trivial to catastrophic and potentially fatal (see Sobhany para 0003).
With respect to claim 7, Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf do not specifically teach wherein, in a second case where multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, each being relative to the plurality of different brain functions included in the plurality of cognitive functions, are smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold, the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions.
Sobhany teaches wherein, in a second case where multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, each being relative to the plurality of different brain functions included in the plurality of cognitive functions, are smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold, the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sobhany wherein, in a second case where multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, each being relative to the plurality of different brain functions included in the plurality of cognitive functions, are smaller than the first threshold and larger than the second threshold, the hardware processor is further configured to determine, for each of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, whether to activate the first function of the driving assistance by the information presentation for suppressing further decline of the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions, or activate the second function of the driving assistance by the driving operation relative to the multiple ones of the plurality of cognitive functions. This would be done to reduce safety hazards ranging from trivial to catastrophic and potentially fatal (see Sobhany para 0003).
With respect to claim 18, Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf do not specifically teach wherein the hardware processor determines that the analysis result indicates the second case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a first threshold and determines that the analysis result indicates the first case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a second threshold, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold.
Sobhany teaches wherein the hardware processor determines that the analysis result indicates the second case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a first threshold and determines that the analysis result indicates the first case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a second threshold, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold (see at least [0019], [0038-0039], and [claims 7-8]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Makoto as modified by Talamonti and Aluf, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Sobhany wherein the hardware processor determines that the analysis result indicates the second case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a first threshold and determines that the analysis result indicates the first case in response to the at least one of the plurality of cognitive functions being below a second threshold, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold. This would be done to reduce safety hazards ranging from trivial to catastrophic and potentially fatal (see Sobhany para 0003).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit