Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/394,008

METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING A STATE OF A RIDER OF A VEHICLE BASED ON USING A WEARABLE SENSOR TO DETECT A CHANGE IN EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE RIDER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 22, 2023
Examiner
HOQUE, NAFIZ E
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Strong Force Tp Portfolio 2022 LLC
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
456 granted / 608 resolved
+13.0% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
628
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.5%
-28.5% vs TC avg
§103
42.7%
+2.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 608 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 04, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections. Response to Amendment Applicant’s claims filed on December 04, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, and 19-24 are still pending in this application with claims 1 and 11 being independent. 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 1-4, 7, 10-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarts et al. (US Pub 2019/0357834) in view of Fields et al. (US Pub 2015/0254955) and in further view of Comploi, Dumene (US Pub 2017/0157521). Regarding claim 1, Aarts discloses a method of optimizing a state of a rider of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving data from a wearable sensor worn by the rider of the vehicle, wherein the data is indicative of an emotional state of the rider (para 0024 – “monitoring may be performed by one or more sensors embedded within (or attached externally) to structures of the vehicle, in wearable(s) attached to the occupants, in mobile devices of the occupants, or any combination thereof”; para 0029, 0035, 0039, 0045); Aarts does not disclose comparing the data received from the set of wearable sensor to stored wearable sensor data in which quantitative patterns present in the stored wearable sensor data are labelled as emotional states; determining a pattern of the emotional state of the rider based on the data received from the set of wearable sensors and the comparison to the stored wearable sensor data; detecting whether the emotional state of the rider is a favorable state; and adjusting an operational parameter of the vehicle in real time in response to detecting the favorable emotional state of the rider, wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle is based on maintaining the favorable emotional state. Field discloses comparing the data received from the wearable sensor to stored wearable sensor data in which quantitative patterns present in the stored wearable sensor data are labelled as emotional states (para 0043-0047); determining a pattern of the emotional state of the rider based on the data received from the wearable sensor and the comparison to the stored wearable sensor data (para 0046); Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts with the teachings of Fields in order to select a stimuli to improve the emotional state of the vehicle operator when the vehicle operator is determined to be in an emotionally impaired state (Fields, see abstract). Aarts in view of Field does not explicitly detecting whether the emotional state of the rider is a favorable state; and adjusting an operational parameter of the vehicle in real time in response to detecting the favorable emotional state of the rider, wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle is based on maintaining the favorable emotional state. Comploi discloses detecting whether the emotional state of the rider is a favorable state (para 0066-0067); and adjusting an operational parameter of the vehicle in real time in response to detecting the favorable emotional state of the rider, wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle is based on maintaining the favorable emotional state (para 0066-0067 – “step 560 involves operating the vehicle based on the occupant's state determined in step 550, and this may involve using the drive and navigation system to continue “as is” if the state is within a desired state range”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts in view of Fields with the teachings of Comploi in order to determine if the passenger is happy and this is the desired state, and the control signals would continue in the present mode (Comploi, see 0067). Regarding claim 2, Fields discloses wherein detecting the emotional state of the rider comprises: receiving a first set of emotional state indicative wearable sensor data that is captured prior to the adjusting; and receiving a second set of emotional state indicative wearable sensor data that is captured during the adjusting (para 0040 –“ continues to monitor the emotional state until the trip is complete (block 316), but other embodiments may continue monitoring for an extended period or may terminate monitoring prior to the completion of the trip under certain circumstances”, 0062-0063). Regarding claim 3, see rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 4, Fields discloses wherein the detecting the emotional state of the rider includes detecting the emotional state of the rider as: an unfavorable state (see abstract – “emotionally impaired state”), or the favorable emotional state (para 0046). Regarding claim 7, Fields discloses wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle further includes adjusting at least one of: a route of the vehicle, an in-vehicle audio content (para 0039, 0052), a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a deceleration of the vehicle, a first proximity to objects along the route, or a second proximity to objects along the route. Regarding claim 10, Fields discloses wherein the training data set is sourced from at least one of: a stream of data from unstructured data sources, social media sources, wearable devices, in-vehicle sensors, a ride helmet, a rider headgear, or a rider voice system (para 0055). Regarding claim 11, see rejection of claim 1. Aart discloses physiological condition of rider (para 0010, 0035) and neural network in taught by Fields in para 0047, 0049, 0051. Regarding claim 12, see rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 7. Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 9. Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 10. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarts et al. (US Pub 2019/0357834) in view of Fields et al. (US Pub 2015/0254955) and in view of Comploi, Dumene (US Pub 2017/0157521) and in further view of Ganguli et al. (US Pub 2019/0187705). Regarding claim 5, Aarts discloses a method of optimizing a state of a rider of a vehicle (see abstract). Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi does not disclose wherein adjusting the operational parameter includes adjusting a powertrain of the vehicle. Ganguli discloses wherein adjusting the operational parameter includes adjusting a powertrain of the vehicle (para 0123). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi with the teachings of Ganguli in order to estimate an emotional state which may be used in evaluating the severity of the reaction that the passenger exhibits in response to the current vehicle motion and may be used to guide whether and/or how to adjust the motion planning (Ganguli, see 0123). Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 5. Claims 9 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aarts et al. (US Pub 2019/0357834) in view of Fields et al. (US Pub 2015/0254955) and in view of Comploi, Dumene (US Pub 2017/0157521) and in further view of Taylor, Thomas Steven (US Pub 2018/0174457). Regarding claim 9, Aarts discloses a method of optimizing a state of a rider of a vehicle (see abstract). Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi does not disclose wherein comparing the data received from the set of wearable sensors to the stored wearable sensor data includes classifying patterns of emotional state indicative wearable sensor data and associating the emotional state indicative wearable sensor data to emotional states and changes thereto from a training data set. Taylor discloses wherein comparing the data received from the set of wearable sensors to the stored wearable sensor data includes classifying patterns of emotional state indicative wearable sensor data and associating the emotional state indicative wearable sensor data to emotional states and changes thereto from a training data set (para 008, 0016, 0019, 0044, 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi with the teachings of Taylor in order to soften the vehicle suspension to mitigate the elevated emotional state of the driver (Taylor, see 0003). Regarding claim 21, Aarts discloses a method of optimizing a state of a rider of a vehicle (see abstract). Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi does not disclose wherein the receiving the data from the set of wearable sensors comprises receiving data from at least two of: a ring, a finger ring, a thumb ring, or a toe ring, a wrist band, an ankle band, a skin patch, foot wear, or a glove. Taylor discloses wherein the receiving the data from the set of wearable sensors comprises receiving data from at least two of: a ring, a finger ring, a thumb ring, or a toe ring, a wrist band, an ankle band, a skin patch, foot wear, or a glove (para 0048 - Sensors that generate human behavior/characteristic information may be part of wearable devices that the driver wears, such as a wrist-worn device, a head-worn device, a garment, a ring, shoes, etc; para 0016, 0019, 0022, 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi with the teachings of Taylor in order to soften the vehicle suspension to mitigate the elevated emotional state of the driver (Taylor, see 0003). Regarding claim 22, Aarts discloses a method of optimizing a state of a rider of a vehicle (see abstract). Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi does not disclose wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle includes adjusting a suspension system of the vehicle. Taylor discloses wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the vehicle includes adjusting a suspension system of the vehicle (para 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aarts in view of Fields and Comploi with the teachings of Taylor in order to soften the vehicle suspension to mitigate the elevated emotional state of the driver (Taylor, see 0003). Regarding claim 23, see rejection of claim 21. Regarding claim 24, see rejection of claim 22. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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. /NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 22, 2023
Application Filed
May 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 07, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 09, 2024
Response Filed
Aug 10, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 21, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 25, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581017
COMMUNICATION ROUTING FOR CONTACT CENTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579363
Incentive Aware-Aggregation Of Generative Models
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573372
TEXT-TO-SPEECH SYSTEM WITH VARIABLE FRAME RATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574459
VOICE-SYNCHRONIZED VISUAL INTERFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547848
One-Shot Visual Language Reasoning Over Graphical Depictions of Data
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 608 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month