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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-11, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200391591A1) in view of KimS (US20200282979A1) and Fung (US20180022358A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches;
A system for controlling a forward collision warning system (taught as a front collision assistance system, paragraph 0048) based on a driver attentiveness value (taught as determining a driver’s inattention in considering whether to activate a warning, paragraph 0052), the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors (taught as an internal camera, element 100, and external sensors, element 200) ; and
an electronic processor (taught as a controller, element 400, containing a processor, element 410, paragraph 0072), the electronic processor configured to:
determine a gaze angle of a driver using the plurality of sensors (taught as determining the driver’s viewing angle, paragraph 0087);
determine a driver attentiveness value based on a comparison of the gaze angle (taught as determining a region, based on the angle, a driver gaze distribution function, shown in Fig 4, to determine recognition rate of objects, paragraph 0087);
determine a forward collision warning system activation threshold based on the driver attentiveness value (taught as, upon detecting an object with a collision risk, 901-902, Fig 9, paragraph 0109, determining whether the object exists within the driver’s gaze region [recognition region], 904, paragraphs 0110-0111); and
selectively activate the forward collision warning system based on the forward collision warning system activation threshold (taught as determining whether to transmit an advance warning time, 905-906, based on the determination of whether the object is within the driver’s gaze region, 904, Fig 9).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach;
a first lookup table, the first lookup table including a plurality of predetermined gaze angles and a plurality of driver attentiveness values, wherein each of the plurality of driver attentiveness values is associated with a respective predetermined gaze angle of the plurality of predetermined gaze angles;
determine a forward collision warning system activation threshold based on a comparison of the driver attentiveness value to a second lookup table, the second lookup table including a plurality of forward collision warning system activation thresholds and a plurality of driver attentiveness values, wherein each forward collision warning system activation threshold is associated with a respective driver attentiveness value of the plurality of driver attentiveness values.
KimS teaches; determine a driver attentiveness value based on a comparison of the gaze angle to a first lookup table (taught as determining a degree of attention from the gaze direction of the driver, using a lookup table, paragraph 0035), the first lookup table including a plurality of predetermined gaze angles and a plurality of driver attentiveness values (shown in Table 1, stored gaze directions of drivers/angles, with associated attention scores and situations),
wherein each of the plurality of driver attentiveness values is associated with a respective predetermined gaze angle of the plurality of predetermined gaze angles (shown in Table 1, stored gaze directions of drivers/angles, with associated attention scores and situations).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lookup table and gaze angle to driver awareness relationship as taught by KimS in the system taught by Kim in order to improve responsiveness of the system. Lookup tables, in general, are known to be faster than equation relationships (which involve division, for example). Simplifying the relationship taught by Kim by using the lookup table in KimS would allow for simpler, faster computation, while still addressing the core gaze direction relationships to driver warning systems that both inventions are directed to.
However, Kim does not explicitly teach; determine a forward collision warning system activation threshold based on a comparison of the driver attentiveness value to a second lookup table, the second lookup table including a plurality of forward collision warning system activation thresholds and a plurality of driver attentiveness values, wherein each forward collision warning system activation threshold is associated with a respective driver attentiveness value of the plurality of driver attentiveness values; and
Fung teaches; determine a forward collision warning system activation threshold based on a comparison of the driver attentiveness value to a second lookup table, the second lookup table including a plurality of forward collision warning system activation thresholds and a plurality of driver attentiveness values (taught as warning settings, in the form of a lookup table; e.g. when the driver state index is 1, the warning type corresponds to just an indicator, paragraph 0796), wherein each forward collision warning system activation threshold is associated with a respective driver attentiveness value of the plurality of driver attentiveness values (taught as warning settings according to the driver state index in the form of a lookup table; e.g. when the driver state index is 1, the warning type corresponds to just an indicator, paragraph 0796; thus, a scaled warning threshold of activation is presented by associating a level of warning with a level of driver state index).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use another lookup table relating warning thresholds to driver state as taught by Fung in the system taught by Kim in order to improve responsiveness of the system. Lookup tables, in general, are known to be faster than equation relationships (which involve division, for example). Simplifying the relationship taught by Kim by using the lookup table in Fung would allow for simpler, faster computation, while still addressing the core gaze direction relationships to driver warning systems that both inventions are directed to.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
monitor a forward collision warning system activation value (taught as determining a collision risk between the vehicle and the object, 902, Fig 9, paragraph 0109); and
activate the forward collision warning system when the forward collision warning system activation value is less than the forward collision warning system activation threshold (taught as, upon a risk/possibility of collision, activating a warning, 906, or braking/steering control, 907 Fig 9, paragraphs 0111-0112, according to a recognition index comparison to a predetermined value, paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the gaze angle is measured between a longitudinal axis of a vehicle and a direction in which the driver is looking (taught as determining a gaze region based on a center line and, for example, a normal distribution function, paragraph 0087, shown in Fig 4).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung and Cleveland teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the driver attentiveness value decreases as the gaze angle increases (taught as the driver distribution function, where objects more standard deviations out are less recognizable, shown in Fig 4, paragraphs 0089-0092, such that recognition of features or objects within a driver’s gaze region decreases as the angle from the centerline increases, paragraph 0091, formula 2, for example).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung and Cleveland teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the forward collision warning system activation threshold increases [interpreted to mean the warning is more likely to occur the less attention the driver has] as the driver attentiveness value decreases (taught as determining a driver recognition index of an object based on the driver gaze distribution function and comparing to a predetermined value, paragraph 0092, where when the recognition index reaches below a predetermined value [determining the driver does not recognize/have attention], proceed with a warning activation, 904 Fig 9, paragraphs 0110-0111; while not explicitly using thresholds, the concept of only activating a warning on detecting a decreased/lower attention or recognition level is effectively created).
Regarding claim 10 and 15, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 10 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 3. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung and Cleveland teaches;
The method of claim 15 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; further comprising:
monitoring a forward collision warning system activation value (taught as determining a driver recognition index of an object based on the driver gaze distribution function and comparing to a predetermined value, paragraph 0092); and
selectively activating the forward collision warning system when the forward collision warning system activation value is less than the forward collision warning system activation threshold (taught as determining whether to transmit an advance warning time, 905-906, based on the determination of whether the object is within the driver’s gaze region, 904, Fig 9).
Regarding claim 21, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Kim does not explicitly teach; wherein the forward collision warning system activation threshold is a threshold distance between a vehicle and a secondary vehicle, and the electronic processor is configured to activate the forward collision warning system when a distance between the vehicle and the secondary vehicle is less than the threshold distance.
KimS teaches; wherein the forward collision warning system activation threshold is a threshold distance between a vehicle and a secondary vehicle (taught as determining whether a calculated driving dangerous degree exceeds a threshold value, including a time to collision based on relative distance, paragraph 0039), and the electronic processor is configured to activate the forward collision warning system when a distance between the vehicle and the secondary vehicle is less than the threshold distance (taught as activating a system if the threshold is exceeded, paragraph 0040, and outputting a warning upon entering the dangerous situation, paragraph 0056).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a distance/time to collision threshold as suggested by KimS in the system taught by Kim in order to improve safety. By incorporating distance and time to collision considerations, one can more adequately provide enough warning time for a driver to intervene in a dangerous situation. KimS suggests that such a system ensures driving safely in such environments that a driver must pay attention (paragraph 0028), and that such time to collision/distance thresholds being met classify as a dangerous situation (paragraph 0039). Thus, using such thresholds to activate warning/actions to get the driver to pay attention would improve the overall safety in the system.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20200391591A1) as modified by KimS (US20200282979A1) and Fung (US20180022358A1), and further in view of Cleveland (US20190384387A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung teaches;
The system of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the plurality of sensors includes at least [[a time-of-flight]] camera with a field of view of an interior of a vehicle (taught as an internal camera, element 100).
However, Kim does not explicitly specify; a time-of-flight camera.
Cleveland teaches; a time-of-flight camera (taught as using time-of-flight camera to measure camera to eye distance and angles, paragraph 0050).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a time-of-flight camera as taught by Cleveland in the system taught by Kim in order to improve tracking. As suggested by Cleveland, using a time-of-flight camera can precisely measure distances and eye tracking (paragraph 0050), which is critical in accurate calculation of a user’s gazepoint (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung and Cleveland teaches;
The system of claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection). Kim further teaches; wherein the [[time-of-flight]] camera determines a direction in which the driver is looking (taught as determining a facial data including face and pupil direction, paragraph 0078), a head position of the driver (taught as facial data including face direction, paragraph 0078), [[a body position of the driver]], or a combination thereof to determine the gaze angle.
However, Kim does not explicitly specify; a time-of-flight camera.
Cleveland teaches; a time-of-flight camera (taught as using time-of-flight camera to measure camera to eye distance and angles, paragraph 0050).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a time-of-flight camera as taught by Cleveland in the system taught by Kim in order to improve tracking. As suggested by Cleveland, using a time-of-flight camera can precisely measure distances and eye tracking (paragraph 0050), which is critical in accurate calculation of a user’s gazepoint (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 12 and 16, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 5. Therefore, claims 12 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by KimS and Fung and Cleveland teaches;
The method of claim 16 (see claim 5 rejection). Kim further teaches; further comprising: determining a gaze angle from the gaze location, wherein the gaze angle is measured between a gaze axis aligned with the gaze location of the driver and a drive axis aligned with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle (taught as the driver gaze distribution function being determined based on a two-dimensional coordinate system, paragraph 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks that the recited prior art does not effectively teach the amended claim material of the independent claims.
The examiner agrees that the previously recited prior art does not teach the lookup table as cited in the amended claims, and thus withdraws the previous rejection. However, a new rejection in light of KimS and Fung is made above [and removed Yu, as the material related to Yu was amended out].
Examiner notes that an argument presented on page 8 regarding that “the driver attentiveness value decreases as the gaze angle increases” is not in the present amended independent claim language as argued. This is presented in dependent claims, and is indicated in the examples presented in Kim; larger angles indicate less visible/more distraction [i.e. a recognition of features or objects within a driver’s gaze region decreases as the angle from the centerline increases, paragraph 0091, formula 2. Large angle from the object indicates less recognition/attention]. This effectively teaches that, as angle relative to the gaze centerline increases, the attention, recognition, and associated quantities deceases. Furthermore, such features can additionally be taught, for example, in KimS (the degree of attention dispersion being based on the gaze direction, paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further modification of collision avoidance systems based on driver attention/activity pertaining to the independent claims; US20240367645A1 US20210081689A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights