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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1, 11-12, 20 is directed to a processes and systems Therefore, claims 1, 11-12, 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
As to claim 1 discloses a method of adapting a driver interface for a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining cognitive factor information corresponding to a driver of the vehicle, the cognitive factor information comprising electronic data indicating an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver; and
adapting a driver interface of the vehicle based on the cognitive factor information that includes an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver;
wherein the step of adapting comprises generating a personal alert to the driver via an alert using the adaptive driver interface based on the assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver..
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “adapting…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
As to claim 1 discloses a method of adapting a driver interface for a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining cognitive factor information corresponding to a driver of the vehicle, the cognitive factor information comprising electronic data indicating an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver; and
adapting a driver interface of the vehicle based on the cognitive factor information that includes an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver;
wherein the step of adapting comprises generating a personal alert to the driver via an alert using the adaptive driver interface based on the assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining cognitive factor information…,” alerting the driver…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The alerting the driver via an interface is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the or alerting the driver), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the adapting step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the adapting… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtaining, alerting the driver via adaptive driver interface” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 13-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application . Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 13-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 11-12, 20.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-6,8-9, 11-14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunieda (US 2025/0171030) in view of Porikli (US 10,322,728)
As to claim 1 Kunieda discloses a method of adapting a driver interface for a vehicle, comprising:
obtaining cognitive factor information corresponding to a driver of the vehicle (Paragraph 156 “When the evaluation score E of the cognitive function level of the driver decreases as described above, the cognitive function deterioration factor estimation unit 46 of the driver assistance device 10 according to the present embodiment estimates whether the main factor is an aging factor (first variation factor), a health factor (second variation factor), or a skill factor (third variation factor).”); and
adapting a driver interface of the vehicle based on the cognitive factor information(Paragraph 160 “Based on the result of FIG. 13B, the cognitive function deterioration factor estimation unit 46 estimates that the main factor of the deterioration in the cognitive function is the health factor with the longest leftward arrow. Then, the assistance content determination unit 48 determines to present information related to the main factor of the cognitive function deterioration, such as “The health factor score is rapidly decreasing. Take a break.”. The assistance content display unit 49 displays the information on the center monitor 25a, for example, to urge the driver to change his/her behavior corresponding to the main factor of the cognitive function deterioration.”);
wherein the step of adapting comprises alerting the driver via an alert using the adaptive driver interface (Paragraph 160 “Based on the result of FIG. 13B, the cognitive function deterioration factor estimation unit 46 estimates that the main factor of the deterioration in the cognitive function is the health factor with the longest leftward arrow. Then, the assistance content determination unit 48 determines to present information related to the main factor of the cognitive function deterioration, such as “The health factor score is rapidly decreasing. Take a break.”. The assistance content display unit 49 displays the information on the center monitor 25a, for example, to urge the driver to change his/her behavior corresponding to the main factor of the cognitive function deterioration.”).
Kunieda does not explicitly disclose the cognitive factor information comprising electronic data indicating an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver;
Porikli teaches the cognitive factor information comprising electronic data indicating an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver, adapting a driver interface that includes an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver, (Column 7 lines 39-54 “Various embodiments of the present system use a multimodal approach (e.g., multiple data streams, such as images, audio, vehicle data, etc.), such as described with respect to FIG. 4 below, where each modality can be used to detect features that help the system understand the driver's distress and road rage levels. In various embodiments, the system can adapt and learn ways different drivers may display rage and distress expressions[inhibitory control in response to stress in stressful road rage situations], and determine driver preferences for how warning and driving assistance are to be provided. “)
generating a personal alert to the driver based on the assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver.(Column 7 lines 39-54 “For example, some drivers prefer frequent and repetitive warnings, which will provide assistance until the driver calms down, while other drivers prefer short warnings, because these drivers may be distracted by the alarms and warnings. In various embodiments, driver assistance may include reducing or limiting the speed of the vehicle, applying the brakes of the vehicle, or vibrating the steering wheel.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kunieda to include the teachings of assessing the inhibitive control of the driver of the vehicle for the purpose of determining the drivers ability to respond to distress in a driving situation.
As to claim 2 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the cognitive factor information comprises inhibitive control information corresponding to the driver (Paragraph 44).
As to claim 3 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the inhibitive control information comprises an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver (Paragraph 36).
As to claim 4 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the alert is adaptable via a parameter selected from the group consisting of volume, brightness, contrast, color, frequency, timing, intensity, size, shape, and a combination thereof, and wherein the adaptability of the alert corresponds to the assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver (Paragraph 74).
As to claim 5 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the alert comprises a type selected from the group consisting of audio, visual, haptic, and a combination thereof (Paragraph 74).
As to claim 6 Kunieda teaches a method wherein the alert signals the driver to adjust control of the vehicle(Paragraph 74).
As to claim 8 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the driving behavior of the driver comprises at least one driving behavior selected from the group consisting of:
propensity to tailgate; reaction to a traffic light; propensity to change lanes; lane preference; frequency of lateral lane position shifting; propensity to speed; propensity to pass vehicles; propensity to cut-off vehicles; propensity to speed around turns; propensity to be first to accelerate at a traffic light or sign; aggressive acceleration; aggressive deceleration; aggressive lane changing; aggressive following distance from vehicle ahead; and a combination thereof (Paragraph 94).
As to claim 9 Kunieda discloses a method wherein the alert is adaptable via a parameter selected from the group consisting of volume, brightness, contrast, color, frequency, timing, intensity, size, shape, and a combination thereof (Paragraph 74), and wherein the method further comprises:
determining whether the driver made a driving adjustment or whether the driving adjustment was sufficient, in response to the alert(Paragraph 90); and
adjusting the parameter of the alert to improve responsiveness of the driver in making another driving adjustment in response to the parameter-adjusted alert(Paragraph 90-91).
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 8.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunieda (US 2025/0171030) in view of Porikli (US 10,322,728) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Koochakighermezcheshme (US 2024/0403630)
As to claim 7 Kunieda discloses a method wherein obtaining cognitive factor information comprises a cognitive factor information acquisition scheme selected from the group consisting of receiving driving data from monitoring driving behavior of the driver(Paragraph 8),
Kunieda does not explicitly disclose completing a questionnaire for assessing driving behavior of the driver, and a combination thereof.
Koochakighermezcheshme teaches completing a questionnaire for assessing driving behavior of the driver(Paragraph 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kunieda to include the teachings of completing a questionnaire for the purpose of assessing the driving behavior of the driver.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
Claims 10, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunieda (US 2025/0171030) in view of Porikli (US 10,322,728) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kempf (US 2025/0108837)
As to claim 10 Kempf teaches a method wherein the method further comprises repeating the steps of obtaining and adapting to change a driving behavior of the driver(Paragraph 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kunieda to include the teachings of adapting to change a driving behavior of the driver for the purpose of improving safety.
As to claim 15 Kempf a method wherein a manner of adapting control of the vehicle corresponds to the assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver (Paragraph 6).
As to claim 18 Kempf teaches a method wherein the control of the vehicle adapts from a first driving style that is in accordance with the driving behavior of the driver, to a second driving style that is not in accordance with the driving behavior of the driver, upon the repeating of the steps of obtaining and adapting(Paragraph 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kunieda to include the teachings of adapting to a second driving style for the purpose of improving safety.
As to claim 19 Kempf teaches a method wherein the second driving style comprises a safer driving style than the first driving style(Paragraph 116).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the applicants arguments applicant argue that the claims do not recite a mental process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant arguments. Applicants argued that the steps cannot be performed solely in the human mind but rather require a vehicle interface that is adapted to emit a parametrized alert.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments. As stated above the claims constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “adapting a driver interface …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The additional steps of obtaining “cognitive information”, and the cognitive factor information comprising electronic data indicating an assessed level of inhibitive control of the driver” is a mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity A person can gather information of a driver of the vehicle and asses the level of inhibitive control of the driver and can use this data to modify the display. Applicants argue on page 9 of the arguments that the system automatically generates alerts based on the driver’s assessed inhibitive control. The claim does not state automatically generating alerts but rather merely states that the interface is adapted based on the cognitive factor information. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. 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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights