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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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) 1-6, 11-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen (US Pub No. 2015/0054639 A1) in view of Nagorniak (US Pub No. 2010/0062788 A1).
As per claim 1, Rosen teaches a vehicle warning apparatus comprising:
a line-of-sight information acquisition unit configured to acquire line-of-sight information comprising a direction of a line of sight of a driver who drives a vehicle that is traveling (paragraph [0187], lines 1-8; paragraph [0314]);
a movement information acquisition unit configured to acquire movement information indicating a movement of a particular part of the driver (paragraph [0168], lines 16-19);
a screen information acquisition unit configured to acquire screen information indicating a state of a screen of a mobile device (paragraph [0168], lines 11-12);
a warning level determination unit configured to, while the vehicle is traveling, determine a state of the driver and a state of use of the mobile device by the driver (paragraph [0220], lines 9-10: actively using mobile phone resulting in a distracted driver) based on the line-of-sight information, the movement information, and the screen information (paragraph [0168], paragraph [0187], lines 1-8), and determine a warning level for the driver based on a result of determining the state of the driver and the state of the use of the mobile device by the driver (paragraph [0220], lines 1-4).
Rosen does not expressly teach a warning unit configured to give a warning based on the warning level, the warning being stronger as the warning level is higher to change limitations of allowed functions, wherein
the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when a function of the mobile device in use is an allowed function on the mobile device only when a predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied to ease a limitation of the allowed function, the allowed function being a function use of which is allowed in advance for the mobile device within the vehicle.
Nagorniak teaches a warning unit configured to give a warning based on the warning level, the warning being stronger as the warning level is higher to change limitations of allowed functions (paragraph [0028], lines 5-7 & 19-20: displaying a notification to a driver that certain mobile device functions have been limited based on vehicle speed), wherein
the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when a function of the mobile device in use is an allowed function on the mobile device only when a predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied to ease a limitation of the allowed function, the allowed function being a function use of which is allowed in advance for the mobile device within the vehicle (paragraph [0022]: remove the notification when the vehicle has slowed down or left a predetermined area).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the rule for allowable mobile device interactions as taught by Nagorniak, since Nagorniak states in paragraph [0022] that such a modification would result in safely operating of a mobile device within the vehicle.
As per claim 2, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to determine whether the function of the mobile device in use is the allowed function based on the screen information (Rosen, paragraph [0172]).
As per claim 3, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the allowed function comprises a navigation function (Rosen, paragraph [0172], lines 24-27).
As per claim 4, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the allowed function comprises a navigation function (Rosen, paragraph [0172], lines 24-27).
As per claim 5, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the screen information comprises lighting information and function identification information, the lighting information indicating a lighting state of the screen of the mobile device (Rosen, paragraph [0168], lines 11-12), the function identification information being to be displayed on the screen while the allowed function is in use (Nagorniak, paragraph [0022]; paragraph [0028], lines 18-22).
As per claim 6, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the screen information comprises lighting information and function identification information, the lighting information indicating a lighting state of the screen of the mobile device (Rosen, paragraph [0168], lines 11-12), the function identification information being to be displayed on the screen while the allowed function is in use (Nagorniak, paragraph [0022]; paragraph [0028], lines 18-22).
As per claim 11, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to acquire speed information indicating a traveling speed of the vehicle, and increase the warning level with an increase in the traveling speed (Rosen, paragraph [0018]; paragraph [0220]; paragraph [0341]-[0343]).
As per claim 12, Rosen in view of Nagorniak further teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to acquire speed information indicating a traveling speed of the vehicle, and increase the warning level with an increase in the traveling speed (Rosen, paragraph [0018]; paragraph [0220]; paragraph [0341]-[0343]).
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a vehicle warning apparatus comprising
circuitry configured to
acquire line-of-sight information, movement information, and screen information, the line-of-sight information comprising a direction of a line of sight of a driver who drives a vehicle that is traveling, the movement information indicating a movement of a particular part of the driver, the screen information indicating a state of a screen of a mobile device,
while the vehicle is traveling, determine a state of the driver and a state of use of the mobile device by the driver based on the line-of-sight information, the movement information, and the screen information, and determine a warning level for the driver based on a result of determining the state of the driver and the state of the use of the mobile device by the driver,
give a warning based on the warning level, the warning being stronger as the warning level is higher to change limitations of allowed functions, and
decrease the warning level when a function of the mobile device in use is an allowed function on the mobile device only when a predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied to ease a limitation of the allowed function, the allowed function being a function use of which is allowed in advance for the mobile device within the vehicle.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a method stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising:
acquiring line-of-sight information comprising a direction of a line of sight of a driver who drives a vehicle that is traveling;
acquiring movement information indicating a movement of a particular part of the driver;
acquiring screen information indicating a state of a screen of a mobile device;
while the vehicle is traveling, determining a state of the driver and a state of use of the mobile device by the driver based on the line-of-sight information, the movement information, and the screen information, and determine a warning level for the driver based on a result of determining the state of the driver and the state of the use of the mobile device by the driver;
providing a warning based on the warning level, the warning being stronger as the warning level is higher to change limitations of allowed functions; and
decreasing the warning level when a function of the mobile device in use is an allowed function on the mobile device only when a predetermined condition is determined to be satisfied to ease a limitation of the allowed function, the allowed function being a function use of which is allowed in advance for the mobile device within the vehicle.
As per claim 15, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the method according to claim 14, further comprising determining whether the function of the mobile device in use is the allowed function based on the screen information.
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the method according to claim 14, wherein the allowed function comprises a navigation function.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 5 above) the method according to claim 14, wherein the screen information comprises lighting information and function identification information, the lighting information indicating a lighting state of the screen of the mobile device, the function identification information being to be displayed on the screen while the allowed function is in use.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the method according to claim 14, wherein the screen information comprises lighting information and function identification information, the lighting information indicating a lighting state of the screen of the mobile device, the function identification information being to be displayed on the screen while the allowed function is in use.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claim 11 above) the method according to claim 14, wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to acquire speed information indicating a traveling speed of the vehicle, and increase the warning level with an increase in the traveling speed.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen in view of Nagorniak as applied above, and further in view of Nathan et al. (Nathan; US Pub No. 2017/0303185 A1).
As per claim 7, Rosen in view of Nagorniak teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 5.
Rosen in view of Nagorniak teaches wherein the function identification information comprises an icon or a two-dimensional code.
Nathan teaches wherein the function identification information comprises an icon or a two-dimensional code (paragraph [0019]: selectable icons).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the selectable icons as taught by Nathan, since Nathan states in paragraph [0003] that such a modification would result in presenting only select icons to a user for permitting select operation of a mobile device.
As per claim 8, Rosen in view of Nagorniak teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 6.
Rosen in view of Nagorniak does not expressly teach wherein the function identification information comprises an icon or a two-dimensional code.
Nathan teaches wherein the function identification information comprises an icon or a two-dimensional code (paragraph [0019]: selectable icons).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the selectable icons as taught by Nathan, since Nathan states in paragraph [0003] that such a modification would result in presenting only select icons to a user for permitting select operation of a mobile device.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen in view of Nagorniak as applied above, and further in view of Hotta et al. (Hotta; US Pub No. 2021/0197863 A1).
As per claim 9, Rosen in view of Nagorniak teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 1.
Rosen in view of Nagorniak does not expressly teach wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when the vehicle is traveling in an advanced driving assistance mode.
Hotta teaches wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when the vehicle is traveling in an advanced driving assistance mode (paragraphs [0123] & [0124]; paragraph [0170]: autonomous driving mode determining whether or not to output a notification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement controlling the output of a notification during autonomous driving as taught by Hotta, since it is well known in the art that autonomous driving does not require the driver to be as attentive as during manual driving operation.
As per claim 10, Rosen in view of Nagorniak teaches the vehicle warning apparatus according to claim 2.
Rosen in view of Nagorniak does not expressly teach wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when the vehicle is traveling in an advanced driving assistance mode.
Hotta teaches wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when the vehicle is traveling in an advanced driving assistance mode (paragraphs [0123] & [0124]; paragraph [0170]: autonomous driving mode determining whether or not to output a notification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement controlling the output of a notification during autonomous driving as taught by Hotta, since it is well known in the art that autonomous driving does not require the driver to be as attentive as during manual driving operation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen in view of Nagorniak as applied above, and further in view of Nathan and Hotta.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claims 7 and 9 above) the method according to claim 14, wherein the function identification information comprises an icon or a two-dimensional code,
wherein the warning level determination unit is configured to decrease the warning level when the vehicle is traveling in an advanced driving assistance mode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference, or previously selected portion of a reference, applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685