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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 4/14/2026.
Claims 1-13 are amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Regarding interpretation under §112(f)
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended to avoid interpretation under §112(f).
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive; amended claims do not invoke §112(f).
Regarding rejections under §112(b)
Applicant Argues
Claims have been amended to more clearly define the subject matter covered.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s response has been considered and is persuasive in part with respect to certain issues raised under §112(b). However, the claims continue to lack clarity in at least one respect, as outlined below. Therefore, the rejection under §112(b) is maintained to that extent.
Regarding rejections under §103
Applicant Argues
The cited prior art, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest using an “ordinary heart rate” or “pre-driving heart rate”, as defined in the amended claims, in evaluating a driver health condition.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s amendments and response have been considered. While the arguments are persuasive in part, they do not overcome the rejection. In view of, and necessitated by, Applicant’s amendments, a modified combination of refences is applied below that still renders the claim obvious.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, first limitation recites to “acquire a heart rate of a target person”. Claim 1, final limitation, recites “the operation setting being performed based on a result of the health condition which is of a target person and which is evaluated.” In view of claim 12 (method) and claim 13 (CRM) which recite substantially the same subject matter, the examiner believes the recitation of “a target person” in the final limitation of claim 1 is a typographical error and the final limitation is being interpreted as “the target person”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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." Applicant’s specification, paragraph 0009, recites “When a target person P gets in the vehicle 2, which is a moving object, …”. However, it is not clear if the moving object is a stationary vehicle capable of moving or if the moving object is a vehicle currently moving.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 12 (method) and claim 13 (CRM) recite similar features and are rejected as per claim 1.
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 1-2, 5-6, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH1 in view of MEYERSON (US20210065856A1) (hereinafter “HEINRICH-MEYERSON”).
Regarding claim 1
HEINRICH teaches or at least suggests a driver support system comprising a processor ([0018]: “vehicle settings adjustment system that identify a user (e.g., driver or passenger) and/or physiological state based on their health/physiological data measured via a wearable device and automatically adjust one or more vehicle parameters”)2, the processor being configured to:
acquire 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);
evaluate a health condition of the target person based on the heart rate of the target person acquired ([0035]: “these parameters may be analyzed by the sensor measurement module 48 […] analyzes the parameters and identifies the user and/or determines vehicle parameters to adjust based on these parameters” [0018]: system may identify a physiological state (i.e., health condition) of driver); and
perform an operation setting of a moving object ([0018]: vehicle setting system that identifies a driver physiological state and automatically adjusts adjust one or more vehicle parameters based on their physiological state; [0035]: sensor measurement module 48 can signal the vehicle processing unit 12 to disable vehicle),
the processor is configured to evaluate the health condition based on an [0035]: sensor measurement module 48 determines if user is incapable of safely driving vehicle based on sensor data indicating higher heart rate and “signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”, preventing access to the vehicle implies before the driver gets into the vehicle, thus teaching/suggesting determination of a health condition before the driver gets into the vehicle),
the processor is configured to perform the operation setting of the moving object when the target person gets into the moving object as a driver, the operation setting being performed based on a result of the health condition which is of a target person and which is evaluated ([0035]: “signal to the vehicle processing unit 12, which in turn may either prevent access to the vehicle 10 or disable the vehicle 10”, disabling the vehicle implies allowing the driver to enter the vehicle).
In summary, HEINRICH teaches a vehicle setting system that includes a processor. The processor further is configured to acquire physiological data of a driver (e.g., heart rate of driver), determine a physiological state of the driver (e.g., health condition of a driver) based on the acquired data before the driver gets into the vehicle, and adjust vehicle parameters according to the determined state. HEINRICH, FIG. 4, illustrates the general concept of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HEINRICH, FIG. 4
While HEINRICH teaches receiving a driver’s heart rate and heart rate variability data such that the data can be evaluated to determine the physiological state of the driver before the driver gets in the vehicle, HEINRICH does not explicitly teach determining the physiological state of the driver based on an ordinary and a pre-driving heartrate as the driver arrives at the vehicle.
However, MEYERSON in analogous art teaches a wearable device configured to sense a wearer’s heart rate and heart rate variability to develop a “holistic picture of the health” of the wearer ([0026]). MEYERSON further teaches the wearable device may determine a baseline (i.e., ordinary) heart rate and to compare that heartrate to a current heart rate that is measured/sensed “to determine whether the heart rate of the wearer is normal” ([0059]). MEYERSON also teaches that the baseline heart rate is a metric obtained from the physiological data collected for a predetermined number of days ([0058]: “wearer may wear the wearable device for a period of time prior to the planned surgery (e.g., one week, one month, etc.) to generate baseline data”). MEYERSON further teaches to make the comparison at relevant and/or predetermined times ([0058]: baseline data collected such that the current heart rate can be compared prior to, during, and after surgery [0033]: system configured to determine that “wearable device is within a threshold distance”).
HEINRICH is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of vehicle settings adjustment systems. MEYERSON is analogous art as obtaining physiological parameters from a wearable device for the purpose of determining a physiological state is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by 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 implement in HEINRICH’s processor (configured to determine a physiological state of a driver), comparing the baseline heart rate with the current heart rate at a predetermined time (where the current heart rate corresponds to the pre-driving heart rate which is acquired as the predetermined time of the driver arriving at the vehicle) as taught by MEYERSON, because both references address determining a physiological state of a user, from heart rate data sensed by a wearable device worn by the user. Using MEYERSON’s known technique of comparing baseline and current heart rate data, would have been a predictable way to improve the reliability of HEINRICH’s vehicle settings adjustment system without changing its principle of operation.
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.
Regarding claim 2
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
MEYERSON also teaches to compare the difference between the current heart rate and the baseline heart rate to a threshold and make a health condition determination based on the comparison ([0060]: “wearable device determines that the difference does exceed the threshold difference, the process can include transmitting, by the wearable device, an instruction to output an alert […] determines that the difference in the heart rate measurements exceeds a threshold difference […] to output an alert”, outputting an alert such that the condition of the wearer is checked implies that the health of the wearer is poor).
Regarding claim 5
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
MEYERSON teaches that the system determines if the health of the wearer is good or poor, as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches to apply vehicle settings based on determined health of the wearer ([0059]: “determination is then used by the vehicle processing unit 58 to trigger adjustments to one or more vehicle parameters”).
Regarding claim 6
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches to perform a notification to the driver who gets into the vehicle, wherein the processor performs a first notification, which is a notification for driving support to the target person who is driving the vehicle ([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 9
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches to acquire 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).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-MEYERSON in view of MEARS3, in view of TONG4 (hereinafter – “HEINRICH-MEYERSON-MEARS-TONG”).
Regarding claim 3
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH-MEYERSON are not relied on to:
acquire exercise data related to movement exercise of the driver when the driver approaches the vehicle, 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 driver is good when determining, based on the exercise data, that the driver approaches the vehicle at a speed equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold speed by moving with his/her legs.
However, MEARS in analogous art teaches or at least suggests 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 a 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- MEYERSON combination such that MEARS’s determination of a health condition using exercise data could be used with HEINRICH-MEYERSON’s system for the purposes more accurately determining a health condition.
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-MEYERSON-MEARS combination such that TONG’s walking speed threshold could be used with the evaluation unit of the HEINRICH-MEYERSON-MEARS combination for the purposes of accurately accounting for the wearer’s exercise movement.
Regarding claim 4
HEINRICH-MEYERSON-MEARS-TONG teaches the elements of claim 3 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches or at least suggests the processor can determine 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 of the moving object ([0060]: system comprises learning module such that patterns of behavior of user can be learned and can determine that user has worked out based on GPS data and determine “that the heart rate is gradually returning to resting heart rate”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-MEYERSON in view of COFER.5
Regarding claim 7
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 6 as outlined above.
HEINRICH-MEYERSON are not relied on for to perform a second notification.
However, COFER in an analogous art teaches to notify a driver of their health condition when the driver’s health condition is poor based on the heart rate, and the heart rate does not decrease within a predetermined range until a predetermined time elapses from a start of driving the vehicle ([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 ([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).
COFER is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of vehicle settings adjustment systems. 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 COFER to the teachings of HEINRICH-MEYERSON such that COFER’s subroutine to determine if the driver’s heart rate has gradually returned to normal (e.g., resting) could have been used with HEINRICH-MEYERSON’s system which is configured to determine if a driver’s heart rate has gradually returned to normal according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches to transmit position information on a current position of the vehicle to a server outside the vehicle ([0021] & [0040]: location sensor in both vehicle and wearable, [0025]: wearable device, mobile device, vehicle processing unit in communication with each other and/or cloud services implemented as servers ([0028])).
HEINRICH is not relied on to reevaluate the driver’s health at predetermined intervals when the driver’s health is poor and the heart rate of the driver does not decrease within a predetermined range until a predetermined time elapses from a start of driving the vehicle.
However, COFER in analogous art teaches this claim limitation ([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).
COFER is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of vehicle settings adjustment systems. 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 COFER to the teachings of HEINRICH-MEYERSON such that COFER’s subroutine to determine if the driver’s heart rate has gradually returned to normal (e.g., resting) could have been used with HEINRICH-MEYERSON’s system which is configured to determine if a driver’s heart rate has gradually returned to normal according to known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that if the driver’s health did not improve (as indicated by the heart rate remaining elevated), the driver may be experiencing a health emergency and that emergency services would need to be notified of the location of the driver such that the emergency services could respond to the location where the emergency services are required.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINRICH-MEYERSON in view of WANG (CN106627493A1)6 (hereinafter – “HEINRICH-MEYERSON-WANG”).
Regarding claim 10
HEINRICH-MEYERSON teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HEINRICH-MEYERSON are not relied on to acquire the heart rate of the driver from a door handle of the vehicle.
However, WANG in analogous art teaches to acquire a heart rate from a door handle of a vehicle (ll. 48-49: door handle equipped with heart rate sensor).
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 WANG to the teachings of HEINRICH-MEYERSON such that WANG’s door handle sensor would have been used with HEINRICH-MEYERSON’s system configured to acquire a current/pre-driving heart rate for the purposes of making a determination of the driver’s health state before the driver enters the vehicle based on a current/pre-driving heart rate collected from the door handle. HEINRICH teaches to acquire a heart rate before the driver enters the vehicle such that the system can prevent access to the system ([0035]). HEINRICH teaches that “sensors described above for the driver wearable 22 may be integrated in structures of the vehicle 10 instead” ([0030]), thereby providing the motivation to combine.
Regarding claim 11
HEINRICH-MEYERSON-WANG teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
HEINRICH also teaches to limit some functions of the vehicle when the pre-driving heart rate is acquired from the heart rate sensing door handle and the determined state is poor ([0035]: " 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.
NISHIMOTO (US20220017097A1) teaches to analyze user state before the user enters the vehicle.
PRINZ (US20190061772A1) teaches to adapt vehicle functions to a health state of an occupant.
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 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 HEINRICH is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
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). HEINRICH also teaches a user may be a driver.
3 MEARS is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 TONG is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
5 COFER is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
6 Foreign patent and English translation of CN106627493A provided. See PTO-892 for details.
Prosecution Insights