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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 9/1/2023.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an acquisition unit that acquires …” in claims 1 and 13;
“an evaluation unit that evaluates …” in claims 1 and 13;
“a setting unit that performs an operation of setting …” in claims 1 and 13;
“a notification unit that performs a notification …” in claim 6;
“an information transmission unit that transmits …” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0028] of the specification recites that a mobile terminal (4) includes a first processor (40). Paragraph [0030] of the specification recites that the first processor (40) “is a computer including a CPU” and may include memory such as RAM and ROM, in which the latter may store program instructions. “Then, the first processor 40 includes a arrival detection unit 50, an acquisition unit 51, an evaluation unit 52, a setting unit 53, a notification unit 54, and an information transmission unit 55, as functional components or functional units.” Paragraph [0031] recites that the aforementioned “functional components of the first processor 40 are implemented when the first processor 409 serving as a computer executes a first program”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a system comprising a processor where the processing includes “a setting unit that performs an operation setting of a moving object into which the target person gets as a driver” and “the setting unit being configured to perform the operation setting of the moving object based on a result of the health condition of the target person evaluated by the evaluation unit when the target person gets into the moving object as a driver.” However, it is not clear if the moving object is a stationary vehicle capable of moving or a vehicle currently moving.
Claim 1 recites “an ordinary heart rate” and “an ordinary period”. However, this is relative terminology. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 1 recites “the evaluation unit being configured to evaluate the health condition of the target person based on an ordinary heart rate, which is a heart rate of the target person during an ordinary period, and a pre-driving heart rate which is a heart rate of the target person when the target person arrives at the moving object,”. However, it is not clear if the evaluation unit is configured to evaluate the health condition of the target person when the target person arrives at the moving object or if the pre-driving heart rate is a heart rate of the target person when the person arrives at the moving object.
Claim 1 recites “the setting unit being configured to perform the operation setting of the moving object based on a result of the health condition of the target person evaluated by the evaluation unit when the target person gets into the moving object as a driver.” However, in part due to the lack of clarity of the preceding limitation (addressed above), it is not clear if the setting unit is configured to perform the operation setting or if the health condition evaluated by the evaluation unit when the target person gets into the vehicle.
Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected due to inheriting these deficiencies.
Claim 12 recites a method with similar features of the system of claim 1 and is rejected as per claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a computer-readable medium with similar features of the system of claim 1 and is rejected as per claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the setting unit limits some functions of the moving object when the evaluating unit uses, as the pre-driving heart rate, the heart rate acquired from the heart rate sensor provided on the door handle, thereby determine that the health condition of the target person is poor.” However, this is unclear because the claim as drafted states that the setting unit makes the determination that the health condition of the target person is poor based. However, claim 1, which the claim is dependent on, recites that the evaluation unit makes the health condition determination.
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, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH (US20180229674A1) in view of JANG (US20240083466A1)1 (hereinafter – “HEINRICH-JANG”).
Regarding claim 1
PNG
media_image1.png
305
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HEINRICH, FIG. 4
HEINRICH teaches a driver support system comprising a processor ([0018]: vehicle setting adjustment system to automatically adjust one or more vehicle settings based on health/physiological data measured via a wearable device)2, wherein the processor includes:
an acquisition unit that acq1uires a heart rate of a target person ([0030]: driver wearable 22 capable of sensing signals related to heart rate and heart rate variability; [0035]: sensor management module 48 acquires heart rate signal);
an evaluation unit that evaluates a health condition of the target person based on the heart rate of the target person acquired by the acquisition unit ([0035]: parameters (i.e., heart rate) may be analyzed by the sensor measurement module and determines vehicle parameters based on these parameters (i.e., heart rate));
a setting unit that performs an operation setting of a moving object into which the target person gets as a driver ([0035]: sensor measurement module 48 can signal the vehicle processing unit 12 to disable vehicle)
the evaluation unit being configured to evaluate the health condition of the target person based on[0035]: “sensor measurement module 48 further comprises a toxins (TOXIN) module, which in conjunction with the sensors 38, enables a determination of whether or not the user is incapable of safely driving the vehicle 10 based on an indication of an incapacitating or near incapacitating amount of toxin (e.g., alcohol, opioids, etc.) in his or her system. For instance, the toxins module may receive sensor data indicating excessive alcohol in the blood (e.g., higher heart rate, higher skin conductivity, skin color changes, etc.), and signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”, i.e., sensor measurement module 48 determines vehicle can be operated safely based on a driver state which is determined using heart rate data, preventing access to the vehicle implies a driver attempting to enter the vehicle, as such the driver has arrived),
the setting unit being configured to perform the operation setting of the moving object based on a result of the health condition of the target person evaluated by the evaluation unit when the target person gets into the moving object as a driver ([0035]: “and signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”, i.e., sensor management module 48 evaluates heart rate data, determines health condition, health condition is used to determine if vehicle should be allowed to operate or not, and the signal is transmitted to the vehicle for implementation).
HEINRICH is not relied on for to evaluate the health condition of the target person based on an ordinary heart rate, which is a heart rate of the target during an ordinary period, and a pre-driving heart rate.
However, JANG in an analogous art teaches a driving mode switching device and method that determines a vehicle operation mode based on information sensed from a driver (Abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
607
785
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JANG, FIG. 13
JANG teaches to evaluate the health condition of the target person based on an ordinary heart rate, which is a heart rate of the target during an ordinary period, and a pre-driving heart rate ([0182]: “driving mode switching determination unit 141 may obtain the driver's heart rate from the driver detection information, compare the driver's heart rate with a preset normal heart rate, and if the difference between the driver's heart rate and the normal heartrate is not included in the preset error range, may determine that the driver's condition is abnormal”, i.e., driver’s heart rate is heart rate while driving (i.e., ordinary heart rate), preset normal heart rate is driver’s baseline heart rate (pre-driving), abnormal condition is evaluation result).
HEINRICH and JANG are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of using driver biometric data to determine and implement vehicle control settings for the purposes of improving safety and reducing the likelihood of a motor vehicle accident. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JANG to the teachings of HEINRICH such that JANG’s normal and driving heart rate could be used with HEINRICH’s evaluation unit for the purposes of providing a baseline heart rate of which a measured heart rate could be compared before a driver attempts to operate a vehicle. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9
HEINRICH-JANG teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. HEINRICH also teaches wherein the acquisition unit acquires the heart rate of the target person from a wearable terminal attached to a body of the target person ([0030]: driver wearable 22 capable of sensing signals relates to heart rate).
Regarding claims 12 and 13
Claim 12 recites a driver support method executed by a computer comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected as per claim 1.
Claim 13 recites a computer-readable medium storing a driver support program comprising substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and is rejected as per claim 1.
Claims 2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-JANG in view of COFER (US20160318395A1) (hereinafter – “HEINRICH-JANG-COFER”).
Regarding claim 2
HEINRICH-JANG teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is good when a difference in heart rate predetermined threshold value ([0182]: “compare the driver’s heart rate with a preset normal heart rate, and if the difference between the driver’s heart rate and the normal heart rate is not included in the preset error range, may determine that the driver’s condition is abnormal”).
JANG teaches a pre-driving heart rate (i.e., driver’s heart rate) and an ordinary heart rate (i.e., normal heart rate), a difference and a threshold (difference not included in preset error range).
However, JANG is not relied on for when a difference in heart rate is obtained by subtracting the ordinary heart rate from the pre-driving heart.
However, COFER teaches determining the health condition of the target person by subtracting the ordinary heart rate from the pre-driving heart rate ([0028]: “Although the “threshold heart rate” is described as a value that reflects actual heart rate, it can also be a value that reflects a drop in heart rate relative to the baseline average heart rate. The drop can be described in absolute terms (e.g., 10 beats per minute slower than the baseline average rate)”).
COFER is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is directed to systems and methods for detecting an unsafe condition of a driver, based on biometric data, and implementing a vehicle setting based on the result of the determination. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of COFER to the teachings of the HEINRICH-JANG combination such that COFER’s method of determining the health condition could be used with HEINRICH-JANG’s integrated feedback and control environment for the purposes of implementing the evaluation unit.
Regarding claim 5
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
JANG also teaches the setting unit applies a predetermined first setting to the operation setting of the moving object when the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is good, and applies a predetermined second setting, which is different from the first setting, to the operation setting of the moving object when the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is poor ([0178]: “If the driver's condition is abnormal as a result of the analysis, the driving mode switching determination unit may determine to switch the manual driving mode of the host vehicle, which is manually driving, to the autonomous driving mode”).
Regarding claim 6
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches a notification unit that performs a notification to the target person who gets into the moving object, wherein the notification unit performs a first notification, which is a notification for driving support to the target person who is the driver of the moving object when the evaluation unit determines that health condition of the target person is poor ([0056]: user interface to enable output, e.g., “feedback or other messaging to the driver […] adjustments of vehicle parameters may be preceded by a displayed message asking the user to authorize/confirm that the adjustment is permitted/acceptable, or in some embodiments, feedback of the adjustments may be presented, or in some embodiments, such adjustments may be performed in a manner that is transparent to the user”).
Regarding claim 7
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
COFER also teaches the notification unit performs a second notification, which is a notification on the health condition, to the target person ([0030]: “displaying an alert to the user 110, indicating that the user 110 is becoming drowsy or needs to take corrective action to avoid sleep”, i.e., display an alert to the user indicating that the user is unhealthy to drive) when the difference in heart rate is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value and the heart rate of the target person does not decrease within a predetermined range until a predetermined time elapses from a start of driving of the moving object ([0024]: “predetermined period of time during which sampling is delayed may be based, at least in part, on the degree of physical exertion detected prior to the user entering the vehicle. For example, when high physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a first period of time whereas when relatively low physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a second period of time shorter than the first period of time”, i.e., heart rate may be elevated due to exertion from entering or activity prior to entering vehicle and heart rate threshold may be adjusted accordingly dependent on activity level and time since heightened activity level).
Regarding claim 8
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches an information transmission unit that transmits position information on a current position of the moving object to a server outside the moving object ([0025]: wearable device, mobile device, vehicle processing unit may be in communication with each other and/or cloud services; [0028]: clouds may be implemented as servers; [0040]: GNSS sensors including GPS receiver to facility determination of location, location data may be used and accessed via internet including mapping services that are accessed from the internet or other devices).
COFER teaches to determine [0024]: “predetermined period of time during which sampling is delayed may be based, at least in part, on the degree of physical exertion detected prior to the user entering the vehicle. For example, when high physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a first period of time whereas when relatively low physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a second period of time shorter than the first period of time”, i.e., heart rate may be elevated due to exertion from entering or activity prior to entering vehicle and heart rate threshold may be adjusted accordingly dependent on activity level and time since heightened activity level).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-JANG-COFER in view of MEARS (US20200286612A1), in further view of TONG (US20200239001A1).
Regarding claim 3
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER are not relied on for:
the acquisition unit acquires exercise data related to movement exercise of the target person when the target person approaches the moving object, and
even when the difference in heart rate is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value, the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is good when determining, based on the exercise data, that the target person approaches the moving object at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold speed by moving with his/her legs.
However, MEARS in analogous art teaches even when the difference in heart rate is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value, the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is good when determining, based on the exercise data, [0080]: comparison of user’s current heartrate to a threshold; [0082]: “user device tracks user activity levels, such as the user's heartrate, blood flow, or activity levels to determine a deviation from a normal. For example, the user's previous heartrate, blood flow, or activity levels is stored on the user device or another device (e.g., an external device 122 and/or datastores 124). The user's current activity levels are compared the user's previous activity levels to determine if the user's current activity level is elevated”; [0083]: adjust heartrate threshold based on determination of activity level; i.e., [0080]-[0083] teaches to reevaluate a health determination, based on a difference of a measured heart rate and a baseline heart rate being above a threshold, by accounting for exercise data).
MEARS is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is directed to a system for a mobile computing environment comprising a wearable device with a heart rate sensor wherein the system determines a health state of the wearer using heart rate information to determine if the system should cause some implementation to prevent an unsafe condition, which is reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MEARS to the teachings of the HEINRICH-JANG-COFER combination such that MEARS’s determination of a health condition using exercise data could be used with HEINRICH-JANG-COFER’s evaluation unit for the purposes more accurately determining a health condition.
However, TONG in analogous art teaches the acquisition unit acquires exercise data related to movement exercise of the target person when the target person approaches the moving object ([0030]: “acquisition unit 101 acquires the movement of the body of the driver”; [0032]: “movement of the body of the driver may include the behavior of the driver […] Specifically, the behavior of the driver may include, for example, the walking speed at which the driver approaches the vehicle 100”), and
[0056]: “Whether the behavior of the driver is within the normal pattern range may be determined based on whether the behavior of the driver is within a range of a predetermined threshold with respect to the normal pattern”).
TONG is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is from the same field of using biometric data to determine the health of a vehicle driver. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of TONG to the teachings of HEINRICH-JANG-COFER-MEARS combination such that TONG’s walking speed threshold could be used with the evaluation unit of the HEINRICH-JANG-COFER-MEARS combination for the purposes of accounting for the wearer’s exercise movement.
Regarding claim 4
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER-MEARS-TONG teaches the elements of claim 3 as outlined above.
COFER also teaches even when determining that the difference in heart rate is equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold value and the target person approaches the moving object at the speed equal to or higher than the predetermined threshold speed by moving with his/her legs, the evaluation unit determines that the health condition of the target person is poor when the heart rate of the target person does not decrease within a predetermined range until a predetermined time has elapsed from a start of driving the moving object ([0024]: “user was wearing heart rate monitor 120 prior to entering the vehicle, a period of increased physical activity and a level of such activity may be detected by monitor 120. A determination that the user is engaged in increased physical activity can be made based, at least in part, on the user's detected heart rate, a step count rate, accelerometers within monitor 120, or some other suitable functionality of monitor 120. The predetermined period of time during which sampling is delayed may be based, at least in part, on the degree of physical exertion detected prior to the user entering the vehicle”, i.e., exercise/walking will naturally increase a heart rate thus it may provide a false indication of a poor health condition, and to mitigate such the heart rate threshold should decrease correspondingly with time elapsed since the driver enters the vehicle).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-JANG-COFER in view of KURAOKA (US20190274016A1).
Regarding claim 8
HEINRICH-JANG-COFER teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches an information transmission unit that transmits position information on a current position of the moving object to a server outside the moving object ([0025]: wearable device, mobile device, vehicle processing unit may be in communication with each other and/or cloud services; [0028]: clouds may be implemented as servers; [0040]: GNSS sensors including GPS receiver to facilitate determination of location, location data may be used and accessed via internet including mapping services that are accessed from the internet or other devices).
COFER teaches to determine [0024]: “predetermined period of time during which sampling is delayed may be based, at least in part, on the degree of physical exertion detected prior to the user entering the vehicle. For example, when high physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a first period of time whereas when relatively low physical exertion has been detected, the sampling period may be delayed a second period of time shorter than the first period of time”, i.e., heart rate may be elevated due to exertion from entering or activity prior to entering vehicle and heart rate threshold may be adjusted accordingly dependent on activity level and time since heightened activity level).
The HEINRICH-JANG-COFER combination are not relied on for transmitting position information on a current position of the moving object to the server at predetermined time intervals.
However, KURAOKA in an analogous art teaches this claim limitation. KURAOKA discloses an “emergency
notification apparatus 10 is apparatus which issues an emergency notification to an emergency notification center 20 corresponding to […] a poor physical condition of a driver of the subject vehicle.”
Specifically, KURAOKA teaches a determination of position information of the moving object to the server at predetermined time intervals ([0015]: “an emergency notification apparatus used in a vehicle is provided. The emergency notification apparatus includes: a position detector that sequentially detects a position of a subject vehicle, wherein the position detector is configured to detect the position of the subject vehicle based on a positioning signal received from a positioning satellite and detect the position of the subject vehicle by inertial navigation; a notification portion that issues an emergency notification when a state of emergency is caused in the subject vehicle”, i.e., position information is determined sequentially (i.e., at predetermined time intervals) such that the location of the vehicle is known for the purposes of notifying an entity (in this case, emergency response services), i.e., if the location is not determined periodically then the emergency services would not know the location of which to respond).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of KURAOKA to the teachings of the HEINRICH-JANG-COFER combination such that KURAOKA’s location determination at predetermined time intervals could be used with HEINRICH-JANG-COFER’s driver support system for the purposes of notifying emergency service with the location of the vehicle so the emergency services can take appropriate action.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-JANG in view of MAZUIR (US10940790B1).
Regarding claim 10
HEINRICH-JANG teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HEINRICH-JANG teach the acquisition unit acquires[0035]: sensor management module 48 acquires heart rate signal), and
the evaluation unit uses the[0035]: “module may receive sensor data indicating excessive alcohol in the blood (e.g., higher heart rate, higher skin conductivity, skin color changes, etc.), and signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”, i.e., heart rate is measured before driving and is evaluated to determine target person’s condition).
HEINRICH-JANG are not relied on to “acquire, from a heart rate sensor provided on a door handle of the moving object.”
However, MAZUIR in analogous art teaches a system for determining and setting an operation setting in a vehicle.
Specifically, MAZUIR teaches to acquire, from a heart rate sensor provided on a door handle of the moving object (Col. 11, ll. 65-67 – Col. 12, ll. 1-5: “person 111 may touch a door handle […] door handle or the door may have a fingerprint sensor and/or other sensors for obtaining a fingerprint and/or other signals. The vehicle 102 may then compare biometric information associated with the person with biometric attributed stored in memory”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MAZUIR to the teachings of HEINRICH-JANG such that MAZUIR’s biometric sensing door handle could be used with HEINRICH-JANG’s driver support system for the purposes of determining the state of the target person prior to entering the vehicle thereby preventing an unsafe driving condition.
Regarding claim 11
HEINRICH-JANG-MAZUIR teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches the setting unit limits some of functions of the moving object when the evaluation unit uses, as the pre-driving heart rate, the heart rate acquired from the heart rate sensor provided on the door handle, thereby determining that the health condition of the target person is poor ([0035]: “and signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chapin (US20200108795A1) discloses a system including a vehicle comprising setting a vehicle parameter and causing a notification responsive to determining an unsafe driver.
Jeon et al. (US20190011990A1) discloses a system for determining a health state of a driver before and during driving.
Pal et al. (US20170053461A1) discloses a vehicle system capable of notifying relatives in case of an emergency condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 JANG claims priority to KR1020190126608A published on 4/23/2021.
2 HEINRICH [0031] teaches that the processing of data for the vehicle setting adjustment system may be included in one or any combination of the vehicle processing unit 12 (i.e., support device 5), the driver wearable 22 (i.e., wearable terminal 3), or the driver mobile device 24 (i.e., mobile terminal 5). In other words, HEINRICH teaches that the claimed functional units can be implemented in a single device, such as the first processor 40 of the mobile terminal 4.