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 § 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 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misu (US 2018/0050696) in view of Gordon (US 2017/0057507)
As to claim 1 Misu discloses a system comprising:
a controller configured to:
train a model for predicting a preferred distance between a vehicle and a preceding vehicle using a training data set including physiological data of a driver and information on a status of the vehicle (Paragraph 36 “As described above, the vehicle data along with the physiological event sent from the vehicle may be processed to derive information including modifying driving functionalities. In one illustration, vehicle data such as captured images may be analyzed at the remote system and annotated after the driver has been determined to be nervous. Annotations, such as labeling, may be performed through manual or automated software. These labels may provide training models in machine learning algorithms for automated driving functionalities.”);
input current physiological data of the driver and information on a current status of the vehicle to the trained model to obtain a current preferred distance (Paragraph 38 “In another example, vehicle data such as automated cruise control system information may be provided to the remote system when a physiological sensor in the vehicle detects a change in facial expressions of the driver. The physiological sensors in the vehicle may detect that the driver is anxious as a triggering event to provide the automated cruise control system information. The vehicle data may include distance information at which the automated cruise control system was set. The remote system may process this information and determine that the driver's car was too close, and the distance should be increased such that the driver would feel more comfortable using this functionality.”); and
adjust at least one adaptive cruise control automatic cruise control, and an autonomous driving stack to approach the current preferred distance control the vehicle and the preceding vehicle (Paragraph 38 “In another example, vehicle data such as automated cruise control system information may be provided to the remote system when a physiological sensor in the vehicle detects a change in facial expressions of the driver. The physiological sensors in the vehicle may detect that the driver is anxious as a triggering event to provide the automated cruise control system information. The vehicle data may include distance information at which the automated cruise control system was set. The remote system may process this information and determine that the driver's car was too close, and the distance should be increased such that the driver would feel more comfortable using this functionality.”).
Misu does not explicitly disclose wherein the current preferred distance is a target distance to which the vehicle should converge at a future point in time;
Gordon teaches wherein the current preferred distance is a target distance to which the vehicle should converge at a future point in time (Paragraph 26 “In an embodiment of the present invention, the emotional state of the occupants is detected by biometrics of the occupants. Such biometrics, which are captured by an onboard video camera, wearable biometric sensors, etc., are used to automatically adjust the minimum distance between the SDV and the other vehicle in order to create a riding environment that is comfortable and not fear-inducing.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Misu to include the teachings of determining a current preferred distance for the purpose of allowing the vehicle to maintain a preferred distance from a preferred vehicle.
As to claim 2 Misu discloses a system wherein the physiological data of a driver comprises temperature of the driver, electrocardiogram (ECG) data of the driver, galvanic skin response (GSR) data of the driver, face recognition data of the driver, iris recognition data of the driver, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 38).
As to claim 3 Misu discloses a system wherein the status of the vehicle comprises a status of a throttle of the vehicle, a status of a brake of the vehicle, a velocity of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a direction of the vehicle, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 80).
As to claim 4 Gordon discloses a system wherein the controller is further configured to:
compare the current preferred distance to a predetermined distance, wherein the predetermined distance is at least one of a minimum safety distance and a minimum distance set by the driver (Paragraph 26).
As to claim 6 Misu discloses a system wherein the controller is further configured to:
control the vehicle to increase the distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle greater than or equal to the predetermined distance in response to determining that the current preferred distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the predetermined distance(Paragraph 38).
As to claim 7 Misu discloses a system wherein the controller is further configured to: control the vehicle to maintain the distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle in response to determining that the current preferred distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance (Paragraph 38).
As to claim 8 Gordon teaches a system wherein the controller is further configured to:
display the current preferred distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle and a current distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle to the driver (Paragraph 24).
As to claim 10 discloses a system wherein the model is trained when an engine of the vehicle turned off (Paragraph 126).
As to claim 11 discloses a system wherein the model is a long-short term model (Paragraph 126).
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 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 8.
Claims 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misu (US 2018/0050696) in view of Gordon (US 2017/0057507) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hua (US 2020/0269867)
As to claim 5 Hua teaches a system wherein the controller is further configured to:
generate an alarm to the driver in response to determining that the current preferred distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the predetermined distance (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Misu to include the teachings of generating an alarm for the purpose of preventing collision with the preceding vehicle.
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the applicants arguments applicants argue that Misu does not disclose the prediction of a preferred distance between the vehicle and comparison against a minimum distance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments. Gordon teaches of collecting biometric information from the occupant. The biometric sensors detect physiological data such as blood pressure, respiratory rate, etc. (Paragraph 85 “In another embodiment, the biometric sensor is a component of a smart phone or other device carried by an occupant of the SDV. In either embodiment, the biometric sensor is able to detect and output readings indicative of blood pressure, respiratory rate, pupil dilation, skin flushing, galvanic skin resistance from sweating, electrocardiogram reading, etc. Thus, it is the biometric sensor, and not just the subjective feelings of the occupant, that detects the emotional state of the occupant.”). Gordon teaches adjusting the preferred distance based on the information collected from the biometric sensors wherein the current preferred distance is a target distance to which the vehicle should converge at a future point in time (Paragraph 26 “In an embodiment of the present invention, the emotional state of the occupants is detected by biometrics of the occupants. Such biometrics, which are captured by an onboard video camera, wearable biometric sensors, etc., are used to automatically adjust the minimum distance between the SDV and the other vehicle in order to create a riding environment that is comfortable and not fear-inducing.”, Paragraph 87 “As described in block 508, one or more processors then issue spatial separation instructions to a control mechanisms controller (e.g., SDV control mechanisms controller 303 shown in FIG. 3) on the SDV to adjust a spacing (spatial separation) between the SDV and the other vehicle based on the emotional state descriptor for said at least one occupant of the SDV. For example, if the emotional state of the occupant(s) is anxiety beyond a certain predefined level, then the spatial separation is adjusted until the anxiety level of the occupant(s) drops below that predefined level. The level of anxiety is determined by inputs from the occupant(s) (see FIG. 6) and/or by interpreting outputs from biometric sensors (e.g., biometric sensors that measure physiological responses within the occupants' bodies, photo image interpretation that identifies certain known facial expressions that express certain levels of fear, calm, anxiety, etc.).”).
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
3/9/2026