DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/480,531 filed on February 26, 2026 in which claims 1, 5-7, 17, 21-27, 30, 24, 36, and 37 were amended and claims 3, 4, and 20 were cancelled.
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
Claims 1, 2, 5-19, and 21-40 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 30, and 34 have been amended to include the limitation “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system updates the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle based on the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to evaluate patterns in the health parameters of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals.” (Emphasis added).
This appears to recite that the intended use of the updating is to evaluate patterns in the future without requiring such evaluation to occur in this limitation.
“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US Publication 2018/0281784 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Hassan et al., US Publication 2017/0274906 (hereinafter Hassan), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated May 28, 2025, as evidenced by Lyman et al., US Publication 2012/0062743 (hereinafter Lyman)1, Schofield et al., US Patent 6,690,268 (hereinafter Schofield)2, Korvadi et al., US Publication 2016/0036917 (hereinafter Korvadi)3, and Ihlenburg et al., US Publication 2014/0218535 (hereinafter Ihlenburg)4.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera.” (Huang ¶ 18). Additionally, Huang discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software.” (Huang ¶ 16). Further, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system accesses a driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 30) by accessing previously generated user profiles. Moreover, Huang discloses “wherein the driver profile includes status of a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 21) where the profile includes health information. Likewise, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system, responsive at least in part to processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera, determines a current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by giving an example of using the camera to determine the driver’s dizziness level, which is a health parameter. Huang also discloses “wherein the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle comprises at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle determined by the vehicular driver monitoring system during at least one previous trip by the driver” (Huang ¶ 21) by describing that the profiles are updated with new data over time, and including features such as driver history and whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal. The parameters must necessarily have been recorded on previous trips in order to establish factors such as “normal” and “history.” Huang goes on to use examples of characteristics that indicate factors such as “how likely the driver is to activate the turn signal,” (Huang ¶ 45) or “historical behavior of the driver” (Huang ¶ 18) which would indicate to a person of ordinary skill that these factors are calculated from prior trips.
In addition, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system updates the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle based on the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to evaluate patterns in the health parameters of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals” (Huang ¶ 21) where profiles are updated with new data over time including data such as “whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal” which is a pattern in a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals.
Furthermore, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a health rating of the driver of the vehicle based on a comparison of (i) the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle and (ii) the at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” Here, the driver’s behavior at a current time is “the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle,” while the historical behavior of the driver is “at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle.”
Finally, Huang at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the comparison comprises determining a difference between the determined current status and the at least one previously determined status and determining that the difference satisfies a threshold.” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 22, 29-32). Specifically, Huang discloses that the driver profile includes comparing the driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver (Huang ¶ 8), which is a difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time” (i.e., determined current status) and the “historical behavior of the driver” (i.e., at least one previously determined status). Huang clarifies that these health conditions are part of the profile. (Huang ¶ 29) Huang continues that the “threat level” is “based on the driver profile.” (Huang ¶ 31). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the threat level may be the determined difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver” because this is part of the driver profile, which is then used to determine the threat level. Finally, Huang discloses that the threat level, which may be the determined difference as just discussed, is compared to a threat level threshold. (Huang ¶ 32, see also ¶ 40).
Huang does not appear to explicitly disclose “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data;” “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns;” or “wherein image data captured by the camera is processed at the ECU.”
However, Hassan discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data.” (Hassan ¶ 63). Additionally, Hassan discloses “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array.” (Lyman ¶ 43). Further, Hassan discloses “wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.” (Hassan ¶ 112). Finally, Hassan discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein image data captured by the camera is processed at the ECU.” (Lyman ¶ 42).
Huang and Hassan are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle driver monitoring systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang and Hassan before him or her to modify the driver monitoring system of Huang to include the particular camera and ECU of Hassan.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Huang differs from the claimed invention by including generic camera and ECU in place of the claimed camera and ECU. Further, Hassan teaches that the claimed camera and ECU were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the camera and ECU of Hassan for generic camera and ECU of Huang because both sets of cameras and ECUs are capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) an emotional state of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) a drowsiness level of the driver of the vehicle, (iii) a breath analysis of the driver of the vehicle, (iv) a skin analysis of the driver of the vehicle and (v) a heart rate of the driver of the vehicle” (Hassan ¶ 35) where the health parameter includes a least a breath analysis.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle exceeds a threshold status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 24) where the threshold change is that the value exceeds a threshold status of a threat value.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle is less than a threshold status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 21) where the driver’s sleep is judged to be below a normal threshold value.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines that the difference satisfies the threshold by transmitting the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to a server remote from the vehicle and the vehicular driver monitoring system receiving, from the server, a response indicating that the difference satisfies the threshold” (Huang ¶ 28, see also Hassan ¶ 105) by using a cloud computing system to perform these functions as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the camera is disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Schofield Col. 40, ll. 29-67).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the camera is disposed within a mirror head of the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle, and wherein the camera views through a mirror reflective element of the mirror head of the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Schofield Col. 40, ll. 29-67).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Lyman ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly.” (Korvadi ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU via a coaxial cable.” (Ihlenburg ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is operable to process data for at least one driving assist system of the vehicle.” (Huang ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the at least one driving assist system of the vehicle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a headlamp control system of the vehicle, (ii) a pedestrian detection system of the vehicle, (iii) a traffic sign recognition system of the vehicle, (iv) a collision avoidance system of the vehicle, (v) an emergency braking system of the vehicle, (vi) a lane departure warning system of the vehicle, (vii) a lane keep assist system of the vehicle and (viii) an adaptive cruise control system of the vehicle” (Lyman ¶ 39) where the driving assist system includes at least (i), (vi), and (viii).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle is stored in memory at a remote server that is remote from the vehicle, and wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system accesses the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle via wireless communication” (Huang ¶¶ 2, 18, 24) where Huang indicates that the profile may be acquired via V2X communication (Huang ¶ 18), which is explicitly stated to include V2I (Huang ¶ 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the infrastructure is a “server” within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term, and Huang further indicates that the connection may be wireless. (Huang ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle is stored in memory at the vehicle. (Huang ¶ 27, Figs. 1, 2) by disclosing that the driver profile may be stored in a memory (Huang ¶ 27), which is shown to be part of system 110 (Huang Fig. 2), that itself is shown to be at the vehicle. (Huang Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system generates a health notification for the driver of the vehicle responsive to the determined health rating of the driver of the vehicle indicating that the difference satisfies the threshold” (Huang ¶ 45) by generating an alert.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the health notification comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a visual alert, (ii) an audible alert and (iii) a haptic alert” (Huang ¶ 45) where turn lights are visual alerts.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system provides the health notification to at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a healthcare professional and (ii) emergency services” (Hassan ¶ 37) by contacting emergency services.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the comparison further comprises a second difference between the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle and a predicted health parameter status and determines that the second difference satisfies a second threshold, and wherein the predicted health parameter status is based at least in part on the at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle.” (Huang ¶¶ 21-22, Hassan ¶ 104). Specifically, Huang discloses that the health parameters are compared to a threshold to determine a distance (as discussed, for example, in regards to claim 5 above), while Hassan teaches that the health values may be generated by an artificial intelligence method, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is “predicting” the result. Huang furth discloses that multiple health parameters may be used, such as whether the driver is inebriated and the driver’s amount of sleep.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle fails to satisfy at least one health parameter criteria” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 23) by determining that the threat level is indicative of an unsafe condition (i.e., fails to satisfy a criteria) based on determining the threat level, (Huang ¶ 23) which is generated by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” (Huang ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle satisfies at least one health parameter criteria” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 23) by determining that the threat level is indicative of an unsafe condition based on determining the threat level, (Huang ¶ 23) which is generated by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” (Huang ¶ 18). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by determining the condition fails to satisfy a criteria, Huang may also determine that the condition satisfies a criteria.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines whether the determined current status satisfies at least one health parameter criteria by transmitting the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to a remote server and the vehicular driver monitoring system receiving, from the remote server, a response indicating that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle satisfies at least one health parameter criteria” (Huang ¶ 28, see also Hassan ¶ 105) by using a cloud computing system to perform these functions as discussed above.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle satisfies an unhealthy threshold status indicating that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle is within an unhealthy range” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 23) by determining that the threat level is indicative of an unsafe condition based on determining the threat level, (Huang ¶ 23) which is generated by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” (Huang ¶ 18).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle satisfies a healthy threshold status indicating that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle is within a healthy range” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 23) by determining that the threat level is indicative of an unsafe condition based on determining the threat level, (Huang ¶ 23) which is generated by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” (Huang ¶ 18). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that by determining an unhealthy condition, Huang is also determining that the unhealthy condition is not met, and thus has determined a healthy condition.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines that the difference satisfies the threshold by using a machine learning model” (Hassan ¶ 104) where a neural network is understood to be a machine learning model.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “further comprising a health sensor, the health sensor capturing health data, and wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system updates the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle using the captured health data and the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle.” (Huang ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 28 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the health sensor comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a pollen sensor, (ii) an alcohol sensor, (iii) a heart rate sensor, (iv) a blood pressure sensor, (v) a temperature sensor, (vi) a breath rate sensor and (vii) a glucose level sensor” (Huang ¶ 44) where the health sensor at least comprises an alcohol sensor.
Regarding claim 30, Huang discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera.” (Huang ¶ 18). Additionally, Huang discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software” (Huang ¶ 16). Further, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system accesses a driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 30) by accessing previously generated user profiles. Moreover, Huang discloses “wherein the driver profile includes status of a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 21) where the profile includes health information. Likewise, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system, responsive at least in part to processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU, determines a current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by giving an example of using the camera to determine the driver’s dizziness level, which is a health parameter. Huang also discloses “wherein the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle comprises at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle determined by the vehicle driver monitoring system during at least one previous trip by the driver” (Huang ¶ 21) by describing that the profiles are updated with new data over time, and including features such as driver history and whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal. The parameters must necessarily have been recorded on previous trips in order to establish factors such as “normal” and “history.” Huang goes on to use examples of characteristics that indicate factors such as “how likely the driver is to activate the turn signal,” (Huang ¶ 45) or “historical behavior of the driver” (Huang ¶ 18) which would indicate to a person of ordinary skill that these factors are calculated from prior trips.
In addition, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system updates the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle based on the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to evaluate patterns in the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals” (Huang ¶ 21) where profiles are updated with new data over time including data such as “whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal” which is a pattern in a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals.
Furthermore, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a health rating of the driver of the vehicle based on a comparison of (i) the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle and (ii) the at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.” Here, the driver’s behavior at a current time is “the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle,” while the historical behavior of the driver is “at least one previously determined status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle.”
Finally, Huang at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the comparison comprises determining a difference between the determined current status and the at least one previously determined status and determining that the difference satisfies a threshold.” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 22, 29-32). Specifically, Huang discloses that the driver profile includes comparing the driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver (Huang ¶ 8), which is a difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time” (i.e., determined current status) and the “historical behavior of the driver” (i.e., at least one previously determined status). Huang clarifies that these health conditions are part of the profile. (Huang ¶ 29) Huang continues that the “threat level” is “based on the driver profile.” (Huang ¶ 31). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the threat level may be the determined difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver” because this is part of the driver profile, which is then used to determine the threat level. Finally, Huang discloses that the threat level, which may be the determined difference as just discussed, is compared to a threat level threshold. (Huang ¶ 32, see also ¶ 40).
Huang does not appear to explicitly disclose “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data;” “wherein the camera is disposed within a mirror head of an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle, and wherein the camera views through a mirror reflective element of the mirror head of the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle;” “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns;” “wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly;” “wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly;” or “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to and processed at the ECU.”
However, Hassan discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data.” (Hassan ¶ 63). Additionally, Hassan discloses “wherein the camera is disposed within a mirror head of an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle, and wherein the camera views through a mirror reflective element of the mirror head of the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Schofield Col. 40, ll. 29-67). Further, Hassan discloses “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array.” (Lyman ¶ 43). Moreover, Hassan discloses “wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.” (Hassan ¶ 112). Likewise, Hassan discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software, wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly.” (Lyman ¶ 42). Hassan also discloses “wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly.” (Korvadi ¶ 50). Finally, Hassan discloses “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to and processed at the ECU.” (Hassan ¶ 111).
Huang and Hassan are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle driver monitoring systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang and Hassan before him or her to modify the driver monitoring system of Huang to include the particular camera and ECU of Hassan.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Huang differs from the claimed invention by including generic camera and ECU in place of the claimed camera and ECU. Further, Hassan teaches that the claimed camera and ECU were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the camera and ECU of Hassan for generic camera and ECU of Huang because both sets of cameras and ECUs are capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 30 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU via a coaxial cable.” (Ihlenburg ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 30 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is operable to process data for at least one driving assist system of the vehicle.” (Huang ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 32 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the at least one driving assist system of the vehicle comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a headlamp control system of the vehicle, (ii) a pedestrian detection system of the vehicle, (iii) a traffic sign recognition system of the vehicle, (iv) a collision avoidance system of the vehicle, (v) an emergency braking system of the vehicle, (vi) a lane departure warning system of the vehicle, (vii) a lane keep assist system of the vehicle and (viii) an adaptive cruise control system of the vehicle” (Lyman ¶ 39) where the driving assist system includes at least (i), (vi), and (viii).
Regarding claim 34, Huang discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera.” (Huang ¶ 18). Additionally, Huang discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software.” (Huang ¶ 16). Further, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system accesses a driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 30) by accessing previously generated user profiles. Moreover, Huang discloses “wherein the driver profile includes status of a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 21) where the profile includes health information. Likewise, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system, responsive at least in part to processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera, determines a current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by giving an example of using the camera to determine the driver’s dizziness level, which is a health parameter. Huang also discloses “wherein the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle comprises a plurality of previously determined statuses of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle, and herein the plurality of previously determined statuses of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle comprises a plurality of health parameter statuses determined by the vehicular driver monitoring system during previous trips by the driver” (Huang ¶ 21) where profiles are updated with new data over time, meaning that a plurality of values will exist or will have existed. Huang describes that the profiles are updated with new data over time, including features such as driver history and whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal. The parameters must necessarily have been recorded on previous trips in order to establish factors such as “normal” and “history.” Huang goes on to use examples of characteristics that indicate factors such as “how likely the driver is to activate the turn signal,” (Huang ¶ 45) or “historical behavior of the driver” (Huang ¶ 18) which would indicate to a person of ordinary skill that these factors are calculated from prior trips.
In addition, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system updates the driver profile associated with the driver of the vehicle based on the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle to evaluate patterns in the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals” (Huang ¶ 21) where profiles are updated with new data over time including data such as “whether the driver is operating on less sleep than normal” which is a pattern in a health parameter of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals.
Furthermore, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a health rating of the driver of the vehicle based on a comparison of (i) the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle and (ii) the plurality of previously determined statuses of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 18) by “compar[ing] the driver's behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver.”
Moreover, Huang at least teaches and/or suggests “wherein the comparison comprises determining a difference between the determined current status and the plurality of previously determined status and the determining that the difference satisfies a threshold.” (Huang ¶¶ 18, 22, 29-32). Specifically, Huang discloses that the driver profile includes comparing the driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver (Huang ¶ 8), which is a difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time” (i.e., determined current status) and the “historical behavior of the driver” (i.e., the plurality of previously determined status). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that historical data includes multiple instances of that data over time. Huang clarifies that these health conditions are part of the profile. (Huang ¶ 29) Huang continues that the “threat level” is “based on the driver profile.” (Huang ¶ 31). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the threat level may be the determined difference between the “driver’s behavior at a current time as compared to the historical behavior of the driver” because this is part of the driver profile, which is then used to determine the threat level. Finally, Huang discloses that the threat level, which may be the determined difference as just discussed, is compared to a threat level threshold. (Huang ¶ 32, see also ¶ 40).
Finally, Huang discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system is operable to determine that the determined health rating of the driver of the vehicle is indicative of a threshold change in the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 24) where the threshold change is that the value exceeds a threshold status of a threat value.
Huang does not appear to explicitly disclose “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data;” “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns;” or “wherein image data captured by the camera is processed at the ECU.”
However, Hassan discloses a vehicular driver monitoring system, the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising “a camera disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system, the camera viewing a driver of the vehicle, wherein the camera is operable to capture image data.” (Hassan ¶ 63). Additionally, Hassan discloses “wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array.” (Lyman ¶ 43). Further, Hassan discloses “wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns.” (Hassan ¶ 112). Finally, Hassan discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein image data captured by the camera is processed at the ECU.” (Lyman ¶ 42).
Huang and Hassan are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle driver monitoring systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Huang and Hassan before him or her to modify the driver monitoring system of Huang to include the particular camera and ECU of Hassan.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Huang differs from the claimed invention by including generic camera and ECU in place of the claimed camera and ECU. Further, Hassan teaches that the claimed camera and ECU were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the camera and ECU of Hassan for generic camera and ECU of Huang because both sets of cameras and ECUs are capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 34 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle comprises one selected from the group consisting of (i) an emotional state of the driver of the vehicle, (ii) a drowsiness level of the driver of the vehicle, (iii) a breath analysis of the driver of the vehicle, (iv) a skin analysis of the driver of the vehicle and (v) a heart rate of the driver of the vehicle” (Hassan ¶ 35) where the health parameter includes a least a breath analysis.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle exceeds a threshold status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 24) where the threshold change is that the value exceeds a threshold status of a threat value.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 35 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system further determines that the determined current status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle is less than a threshold status of the health parameter of the driver of the vehicle” (Huang ¶ 21) where the driver’s sleep is judged to be below a normal threshold value.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 34 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the camera is disposed within a mirror head of an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle, and wherein the camera views through a mirror reflective element of the mirror head of the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Schofield Col. 40, ll. 29-67).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 38 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.” (Lyman ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 38 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein the ECU is disposed at the vehicle remote from the interior rearview mirror assembly.” (Korvadi ¶ 50). Further, the combination of Huang and Hassan discloses “wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to the ECU via a coaxial cable.” (Ihlenburg ¶ 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 30, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant first argues “Huang’s system updates profiles to evaluate the immediate risk of a driving accident, not to longitudinally track physiological medical trends across multiple independent journeys.” (Remarks 14-15). The examiner disagrees.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., longitudinally track physiological medical trends across multiple independent journeys) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
First, the claims, as amended only require “at least one previous trip” and not “multiple independent journeys,” as argued.” Second, nothing in the claims require tracking “physiological medical trends.” Instead, the claims only require “health parameter[s],” which is significantly broader that “physiological medical trends.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues “Huang provides no disclosure or suggestion whatsoever of determining a health rating based on a comparison comprising determining a difference between the determined current status and the at least one previously determined status and determining that the difference satisfies a threshold.” (Remarks 15). The examiner disagrees.
Once again, Applicant is relying on features that are not claimed. Specifically, the claims do not require a “health rating” in any form. Instead, the claims require health parameters, which are a very different concepts. For example, a pulse rate is a health parameter but not a health rating because it has no indication of any quality or ranking. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “Hassan also fails to teach updating the driver profile to evaluate patterns in the health parameters of the driver of the vehicle over a plurality of time intervals, as claimed.” (Remarks 15-16).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the rejection above, this limitation is taught by Huang. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Hassan “provides no disclosure or suggestion whatsoever of determining a health rating based on a comparison comprising determining a difference between the determined current status and the at least one previously determined status and determining that the difference satisfies a threshold, as claimed.” (Remarks 16).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the rejection above, this limitation is taught by Huang. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 5-19, 21-29, 31-33, and 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable for depending on one the claims above. (Remarks 16-17). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 As incorporated by reference at Hassan ¶¶ 108 and 109.
2 As incorporated by reference at Hassan ¶¶ 109 and 113.
3 As incorporated by reference at Hassan ¶ 109.
4 As incorporated by reference at Hassan ¶113.
Prosecution Insights