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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moncomble (US 2023/0406204 A1) in view of Bridenbaugh (US 2024/0060276 A1) and Hari (US 2023/0112004 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moncomble discloses a method comprising: determining a direction of a gaze of a user using a sensor ([0061] – one or more of the sensors 91, 92, 93 are oriented toward the driver C… determine the direction of the gaze of the driver C); redistributing resources of a vehicle system by: reducing the resources of the vehicle system for an action in the direction of the gaze ([0018, 0020, 0080, 0086] - The driver is focusing his/her gaze at one location will remove this location from the unmonitored area for a given period of time... Activating sensors relating to an unmonitored area offers several advantages… The sensors are only activated in order to compensate a non-monitoring by the driver and hence are only activated for the minimum time. i.e., sensors not activated in monitored area); increasing the resources of the vehicle system for at least a second action, the second action being in directions other than the direction of the gaze ([0080] - Once the unmonitored area Z′ has been obtained, the acquisition module 102 will activate, if necessary, sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′. It is possible for the sensors 91, 92, 93 to be activated continuously. The objective here is of course to obtain data relating to the events that may occur in the unmonitored area Z′ and which may therefore escape the attention of the driver C… analyzing data captured by the sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′.); and implementing a driving maneuver of a vehicle using at least the vehicle system (see at least [0053] – capacity for autonomous driving in the vehicle V, such as reversing or automatic parking assistance).
Moncomble does not appear to explicitly disclose the resources for the action being at a non-zero reduced level; increasing the resources of the vehicle system in proportion to reducing the resources of the vehicle system; and implementing a driving maneuver of a vehicle using at least the vehicle system and based on the redistributed resources of the vehicle system.
Bridenbaugh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the resources for the action being at a non-zero reduced level; increasing the resources of the vehicle system in proportion to reducing the resources of the vehicle system (see at least [0046-0047] - Controller 140 may increase the bandwidth associated with the video stream provided by the particular camera based on determining that the bandwidth is to be increased. Conversely, controller 140 may decrease the bandwidths associated with the video streams, of the other views, based on determining that the bandwidths are to be decreased. In some examples, the bandwidth may be increased by a particular amount. Accordingly, a total amount, of the bandwidths associated with the video streams of the other views, may be decreased by the particular amount.).
In order to improve road safety (Moncomble – [0017]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Bridenbaugh into the invention of Moncomble with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to improve the quality of the video stream provided by the particular camera, to improve an efficiency and/or an accuracy of the particular operation (Bridenbaugh – [0045]). Rather than entirely activating/deactivating the sensors/cameras as taught by Moncomble, it would have been obvious to adjust the bandwidth of the cameras as demonstrated by Bridenbaugh. This would still allow for lower quality backup monitoring in areas that the driver is looking, while allowing for higher quality monitoring in areas that the driver is not looking, thereby improving safety.
Hari, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: and implementing a driving maneuver of a vehicle using at least the vehicle system and based on the redistributed resources of the vehicle system (see at least [0035, 0037, 0050, 0073-0076] – one or more of the cameras may be used to perform emergency braking, pedestrian detection, and collision avoidance, and other ADAS functions… allocate resources based on prioritization… decrease FPS of the low priority cameras… increase FPS for high priority cameras).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hari into the invention of Moncomble with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to ensure that enough resources are available and that safe traveling conditions are maintained so that hardware performance is increased and safety is improved, especially when the vehicle is performing emergency braking, pedestrian detection, and collision avoidance, and other ADAS functions (Hari – [0002, 0024, 0035, 0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Moncomble discloses wherein the gaze of the user is based on at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following): a head movement; or an eye movement ([0061] – eye of the driver C).
Regarding claim 4, Moncomble discloses wherein the resources of the vehicle system includes at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following): a data collection resource ([0018, 0020, 0080] - activating sensors relating to an unmonitored area); a data processing resource; or a data storage resource.
Regarding claim 5, Moncomble discloses further comprising: reducing the resources of the vehicle system for the action in the direction of the gaze based on an angle of the direction of the gaze of the user ([0018, 0020, 0032, 0070, 0080, 0086] - The driver is focusing his/her gaze at one location will remove this location from the unmonitored area for a given period of time... Activating sensors relating to an unmonitored area offers several advantages… angle of view of the driver decreases with attention level, the angle of view decreases, and the monitoring area determined also decreases… The sensors are only activated in order to compensate a non-monitoring by the driver and hence are only activated for the minimum time. i.e., sensors not activated in monitored area); and increasing the resources of the vehicle system for at least the second action based on the angle of the direction of the gaze of the user ([0032, 0070, 0080] - angle of view of the driver decreases with attention level, the angle of view decreases, and the monitoring area determined also decreases… Once the unmonitored area Z′ has been obtained, the acquisition module 102 will activate, if necessary, sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′. It is possible for the sensors 91, 92, 93 to be activated continuously. The objective here is of course to obtain data relating to the events that may occur in the unmonitored area Z′ and which may therefore escape the attention of the driver C… analyzing data captured by the sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′.).
Regarding claim 6, Moncomble discloses wherein the vehicle system is one of (BRI requires only one of the following): a sensor system ([0080] - sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z’); a blind spot system; an automatic braking system; a lane keeping assist system; a lane tracking assist system; a traffic sign recognition system; a backup assist system; or a vulnerable road user (VRU) detection system.
Regarding claim 7, Moncomble discloses further comprising: reducing the resources of the vehicle system for the action in the direction of the gaze based on an event ([0018, 0020, 0032, 0070, 0080, 0086] - The driver is focusing his/her gaze at one location will remove this location from the unmonitored area for a given period of time... Activating sensors relating to an unmonitored area offers several advantages… angle of view of the driver decreases with attention level, the angle of view decreases, and the monitoring area determined also decreases… The sensors are only activated in order to compensate a non-monitoring by the driver and hence are only activated for the minimum time. i.e., sensors not activated in monitored area and an event is interpreted under BRI, for example a driver changing their gaze direction or a decreased attention level are interpreted as an event); and increasing the resources of the vehicle system for at least the second action based on the event ([0018, 0032, 0070, 0080] - angle of view of the driver decreases with attention level, the angle of view decreases, and the monitoring area determined also decreases… Once the unmonitored area Z′ has been obtained, the acquisition module 102 will activate, if necessary, sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′. It is possible for the sensors 91, 92, 93 to be activated continuously. The objective here is of course to obtain data relating to the events that may occur in the unmonitored area Z′ and which may therefore escape the attention of the driver C… analyzing data captured by the sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z’. i.e., an event is interpreted under BRI, for example a driver changing their gaze direction or a decreased attention level are interpreted as an event).
Regarding claims 8 and 10-14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 3-7, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 8 and 10-14 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 3-7; therefore, claims 8 and 10-14 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-7.
Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1 and 3-6, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 15 and 17-20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1 and 3-6; therefore, claims 15 and 17-20 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1 and 3-6.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moncomble in view of Bridenbaugh, Hari, and Levkova (US 2018/0126901 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moncomble does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a rate of change of the direction of the gaze of the user; reducing the resources of the vehicle system for the action in the direction of the gaze based on the rate of change of direction; and increasing the resources of the vehicle system for at least the second action.
However, Moncomble does disclose determining a change of the direction of the gaze of the user ([0062-0063] – direction of the gaze of the driver C will vary over time); reducing the resources of the vehicle system for the action in the direction of the gaze based on the change of direction ([0018, 0020, 0080, 0086] - The driver is focusing his/her gaze at one location will remove this location from the unmonitored area for a given period of time... Activating sensors relating to an unmonitored area offers several advantages… The sensors are only activated in order to compensate a non-monitoring by the driver and hence are only activated for the minimum time. i.e., sensors not activated in monitored area); and increasing the resources of the vehicle system for at least the second action ([0080] - Once the unmonitored area Z′ has been obtained, the acquisition module 102 will activate, if necessary, sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z′. It is possible for the sensors 91, 92, 93 to be activated continuously. The objective here is of course to obtain data relating to the events that may occur in the unmonitored area Z′ and which may therefore escape the attention of the driver C… analyzing data captured by the sensors 91, 92, 93 relating to the unmonitored area Z’.).
Levkova, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a rate of change of the direction of the gaze of the user ([0041] – distraction factor value can include determining the parameters of the driver’s gaze, such as rate of change of gaze direction).
Since Moncomble discloses that several approaches exist for determining the attention level of the driver (Moncomble - [0066]), and also discloses that the determination of the monitoring area is based on the driver’s attention level (Moncomble – [0032]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Levkova into the invention of Moncomble with a reasonable expectation of success. Levkova gives various examples of gaze parameters that can be used to determine the distraction level of the driver, and incorporating the use of any of these gaze parameters such as the rate of change of the gaze direction into Moncomble’s determination would have been generally obvious and would yield predictable results. For example, very slowly changing gaze direction could indicate that a driver is fatigued, while a quickly changing gaze direction could indicate alertness of the driver.
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, respectively, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 2; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 filed 4/28/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hari (US 2023/0112004 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights