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 in response to the Response dated October 1, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that primary reference Chan fails to disclose a distraction monitoring system for a vehicle including a vehicle processor configured to receive sensor data from a plurality of sensors and being configured to issue a distraction notification in response to at least one of distraction zone data and sensor data because Chan requires two pieces of data, namely the vehicle being near the location and the operator of the vehicle being distracted, while the independent claims only requires one piece of data.
In response, the Office notes that the scope of the foregoing passage is broader than what is being appreciated as the claim recites issuing a distraction notification in response to at least one of distraction zone data and sensor data, meaning that the notification may be issued: i) based upon distraction zone data, ii) based upon sensor data, or iii) based upon both distraction zone data and sensor data. For this reason, Chan fairly discloses at least one of the configurations being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,308,256, to Chan et al. (hereinafter Chan).
As per claim 1, Chan discloses a distraction monitoring system for a vehicle (e.g. see Abstract, wherein systems and method are provided for determining whether an individual within a vehicle is distracted when approaching a location prone to accidents), the distraction monitoring system comprising: a plurality of sensors coupled to a body of the vehicle (e.g. see Figs. 1A and 2, and col. 3, lines 29-51, and col. 5, line 66, to col. 6, line 14, wherein a vehicle 100 having one or more image sensors 242, such as a plurality of image sensors 105, 106 and 107, are provided); an audio array disposed within an interior cabin of the vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 8, lines 4-18, and col. 11, lines 19-32, wherein the image sensor is in communication with electronic device 246/510 configured for providing auditory notifications via a speaker, and in one configuration speakers (i.e. audio array)); a vehicle processor including a distraction monitoring application, data processing hardware (e.g. see Figs. 3A-5, and col. 8, line 39, to col. 9, line 13, and col. 10, lines 40-62, wherein the electronic device includes one or more dedicated applications 575 ran on a processor 572 for performing the operations of the invention, including distraction assessment (e.g. see Fig. 4)), and memory hardware storing vehicle data and distraction zone data (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device receives, via GPS and which would be stored at least temporarily, vehicle location data, and receives, via server 248 and which would be stored at least temporarily, certain location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents), the vehicle processor being configured to receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors and being configured to issue a distraction notification in response to at least one of the distraction zone data and the sensor data (e.g. see Fig. 4); and a network communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor and configured to provide third-party data to the distraction monitoring application (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device is in communication with server(s), via some sort of network, to receive the location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents).
As per claim 2, Chan discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the sensor data includes one or more of vehicle sensor data, impact avoidance data, and distraction data (e.g. see Figs. 1A and 2, and col. 3, lines 29-51, and col. 5, line 66, to col. 6, line 14, wherein a vehicle 100 having one or more image sensors 242, such as a plurality of image sensors 105, 106 and 107, are provided).
As per claim 3, Chan discloses the features of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the distraction monitoring application is configured to anticipate the distraction data based on a distraction zone, the distraction notification including anticipated distraction data (e.g. see Fig. 4, wherein the electronic device generates a distraction notification 440/445, based upon, at least, the location deemed to be prone to distraction related incidents 405).
As per claim 8, Chan discloses a distraction monitoring system (e.g. see Abstract, wherein systems and method are provided for determining whether an individual within a vehicle is distracted when approaching a location prone to accidents) comprising: a plurality of sensors coupled to a body of a vehicle (e.g. see Figs. 1A and 2, and col. 3, lines 29-51, and col. 5, line 66, to col. 6, line 14, wherein a vehicle 100 having one or more image sensors 242, such as a plurality of image sensors 105, 106 and 107, are provided); an audio array disposed within an interior cabin of the vehicle (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 8, lines 4-18, and col. 11, lines 19-32, wherein the image sensor is in communication with electronic device 246/510 configured for providing auditory notifications via a speaker, and in one configuration speakers (i.e. audio array)); and a vehicle processor including a distraction monitoring application, data processing hardware (e.g. see Figs. 3A-5, and col. 8, line 39, to col. 9, line 13, and col. 10, lines 40-62, wherein the electronic device includes one or more dedicated applications 575 ran on a processor 572 for performing the operations of the invention, including distraction assessment (e.g. see Fig. 4)), and memory hardware storing vehicle data and distraction zone data (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device receives, via GPS and which would be stored at least temporarily, vehicle location data, and receives, via server 248 and which would be stored at least temporarily, certain location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents), the vehicle processor being configured to receive distraction data from the plurality of sensors and being configured to issue a distraction notification in response to at least one of the distraction zone data and sensor data received from the plurality of sensors (e.g. see Fig. 4).
As per claim 9, Chan discloses the features of claim 8, and further discloses further including a network that includes a communication server that is communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor, the communication server configured to transmit third-party data to the vehicle processor (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device is in communication with server(s), via some sort of network, to receive the location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents).
As per claim 11, Chan discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses further including a GPS processor including GPS data (e.g. see Chan, col. 4, lines 12-24, wherein the electronic device includes a GPS chip), the network being configured to communicate the third-party and GPS data to the vehicle processor (e.g. see Chan, col. 5, lines 8-28, wherein the electronic device communicates with remote components via one or more network connections to retrieve information related to the environment of the vehicle and/or operation thereof), the vehicle processor being configured to update the distraction zone data in response to receiving at least one of the third-party data and GPS data (e.g. the Office notes that the distraction zone data will change based upon location of the vehicle, as determined by the GPS).
As per claim 12, Chan discloses the features of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the distraction monitoring application is configured to anticipate the distraction data from the plurality of sensors based on the distraction zone data, the distraction notification including anticipated distraction data (e.g. see Fig. 4, wherein the electronic device generates a distraction notification 440/445, based upon, at least, the location deemed to be prone to distraction related incidents 405).
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 4, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0237006, to Ishii et al. (hereinafter Ishii).
As per claim 4, Chan discloses the features of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the vehicle processor is configured to heighten a sensitivity of the plurality of sensors in response to the vehicle approaching the distraction zone. However, Ishii teaches increasing sensor sensitivity during low visibility, such as a tunnel, (i.e. a distraction zone) (e.g. see paras 0018 and 0041). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include increasing sensitivity of sensor in distraction zones for the purpose of improving object recognition, particularly in dark areas.
As per claim 10, Chan discloses the features of claim 9, and further disclose wherein the vehicle processor is configured to respectively update a distraction zone (e.g. Fig. 4, the Office notes that the distraction zone data, effecting notification of distraction, would change based upon location of the vehicle, as determined by the GPS), but fails to disclose and heighten a sensitivity of the plurality of sensors in response to the third-party data received. However, Ishii teaches increasing sensor sensitivity during low visibility, such as a tunnel, (i.e. a distraction zone) based upon location of the vehicle ascertained through GPS (e.g. see paras 0018, 0041 and 0052). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include increasing sensitivity of sensor in distraction zones for the purpose of improving object recognition, particularly in dark areas.
As per claim 15, Chan discloses a vehicle distraction monitoring system e.g. see Abstract, wherein systems and method are provided for determining whether an individual within a vehicle is distracted when approaching a location prone to accidents) comprising: a plurality of sensors coupled to a body of the vehicle (e.g. see Figs. 1A and 2, and col. 3, lines 29-51, and col. 5, line 66, to col. 6, line 14, wherein a vehicle 100 having one or more image sensors 242, such as a plurality of image sensors 105, 106 and 107, are provided); and a vehicle processor including a distraction monitoring application, data processing hardware (e.g. see Figs. 3A-5, and col. 8, line 39, to col. 9, line 13, and col. 10, lines 40-62, wherein the electronic device includes one or more dedicated applications 575 ran on a processor 572 for performing the operations of the invention, including distraction assessment (e.g. see Fig. 4)), and memory hardware storing vehicle data, and distraction zone data (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device receives, via GPS and which would be stored at least temporarily, vehicle location data, and receives, via server 248 and which would be stored at least temporarily, certain location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents), the vehicle processor being configured to receive vehicle sensor data and distraction sensor data from the plurality of sensors and being configured to issue a distraction notification in response to at least one of the distraction zone data, the vehicle sensor data, and the distraction sensor data (e.g. see Fig. 4), the vehicle processor configured to determine when the vehicle is approaching or disposed within a distraction zone (e.g. Fig. 4, the Office notes that the distraction zone data, effecting notification of distraction, would change based upon location of the vehicle, as determined by the GPS).
Chan fails to disclose the vehicle processor configured to increase a sensitivity of one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors in response to the vehicle approaching or being disposed within the distraction zone. However, Ishii teaches increasing sensor sensitivity during low visibility, such as a tunnel, (i.e. a distraction zone) (e.g. see paras 0018 and 0041). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include increasing sensitivity of sensor in distraction zones for the purpose of improving object recognition, particularly in dark areas.
Claims 5-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0349058, to Bernier et al. (hereinafter Bernier).
As per claim 5, Chan discloses the features of claim 1, fails to disclose wherein the third-party data includes points-of-interest and one or more roadside events. However, Bernier teaches a vehicle alert circuit, of a vehicle fleet, configured to receive and transmit alerts including landmark (i.e. points-of-interest) and crash (i.e. roadside) information (e.g. see para 0080). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include receiving points-of-interest and roadside event data to better inform the driver of upcoming events so that the driver can be more prepared to response thereto.
As per claim 6, Chan, as modified by Bernier, teaches the features of claim 5, and further teaches further including a GPS processor including GPS data (e.g. see Chan, col. 4, lines 12-24, wherein the electronic device includes a GPS chip), the network being configured to communicate the points-of-interest, the one or more roadside events, and the GPS data to the vehicle processor (e.g. see Chan, col. 5, lines 8-28, wherein the electronic device communicates with remote components via one or more network connections to retrieve information related to the environment of the vehicle and/or operation thereof), the vehicle processor being configured to update the distraction zone data in response to receiving one or more of the points-of-interest, the one or more roadside events, and the GPS data (e.g. the Office notes that the distraction zone data will change based upon location of the vehicle, as determined by the GPS).
As per claim 7, Chan, as modified by Bernier, teaches the features of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the distraction monitoring application is configured to update a distraction zone based on the updated distraction zone data (e.g. Fig. 4, the Office notes that the distraction zone data, effecting notification of distraction, would change based upon location of the vehicle, as determined by the GPS).
As per claim 13, Chan discloses the features of claim 12, but fails to disclose all the features of wherein the distraction data includes one or more points-of-interest, the distraction monitoring application configured to issue an audio notification via the audio array identifying the one or more points-of-interest. However, with respect to wherein the distraction data includes one or more points-of-interest, the distraction monitoring application configured to issue…notification… identifying the one or more points-of-interest, Bernier teaches a vehicle alert circuit, of a vehicle fleet, configured to receive and transmit alerts including landmark (i.e. points-of-interest) and crash (i.e. roadside) information (e.g. see para 0080). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include receiving points-of-interest and roadside event data to better inform the driver of upcoming events so that the driver can be more prepared to response thereto. With respect to the notification comprising an audio notification through the audio array, Chan discloses the image sensor is in communication with electronic device 246/510 configured for providing auditory notifications via a speaker, and in one configuration speakers (i.e. audio array)) (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 8, lines 4-18, and col. 11, lines 19-32).
As per claim 14, Chan, as modified by Bernier, teaches the features of claim 13, and Chan further discloses wherein the distraction monitoring application is configured to execute an autonomous function of the vehicle in response to the distraction data (e.g. see Fig. 4).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, in view of Ishii, and in further view of Bernier.
As per claim 16, Chan, as modified by Ishii, discloses the features of claim 15, and Chan further discloses further including a network communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor (e.g. see Fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 26-42, wherein the electronic device is in communication with server(s), via some sort of network, to receive the location data deemed a distraction-prone area susceptible to incidents)
Chan fails to disclose the vehicle processor configured to receive roadside event data and point-of-interest data from the network and, in response, update the distraction zone data. However, Bernier teaches a vehicle alert circuit, of a vehicle fleet, configured to receive and transmit alerts including landmark (i.e. points-of-interest) and crash (i.e. roadside) information (e.g. see para 0080). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include receiving points-of-interest and roadside event data to better inform the driver of upcoming events so that the driver can be more prepared to response thereto.
As per claim 17, Chan, as modified by Ishii and Bernier, teaches the features of claim 16, and Ishii further teaches wherein the vehicle processor is configured to monitor driving patterns to detect a distraction event (e.g. see para 0046, wherein the vehicle includes an in-vehicle sensor that senses driving paths of the vehicle (i.e. monitor driving patterns) as part of the alert system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include monitor driving patterns to determine a particular location of the vehicle for further enhancing detection of a distraction zone.
As per claim 18, Chan, as modified by Ishii and Bernier, teaches the features of claim 17, and Chan further discloses wherein the vehicle processor is configured to issue one or more of audible alerts and haptic alerts in response to a detected distraction event (e.g. see col. 8, lines 19-31, wherein the electronic device issues a notification, via speaker component, of the distraction.
As per claim 19, Chan, as modified by Ishii and Bernier, teaches the features of claim 17, and Chan further discloses wherein the vehicle processor is configured to determine the distraction zone based on one or more of the distraction zone data, the point-of-interest data, and the roadside event data (e.g. see Fig. 4, wherein the electronic device generates a distraction notification 440/445, based upon, at least, the location deemed to be prone to distraction related incidents 405).
As per claim 20, Chan, as modified by Ishii and Bernier, teaches the features of claim 19, and Ishii further teaches wherein the vehicle processor is configured to determine when the vehicle is outside of the distraction zone and is configured to decrease a sensitivity of the one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors in response to the vehicle being outside of the distraction zone (e.g. see paras 0018 and 0041, wherein Ishii teaches increasing sensor sensitivity during low visibility, such as a tunnel, (i.e. a distraction zone), and resumes normal sensitivity when exiting the tunnel. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Chan to include decreasing sensitivity of sensor after leaving a distraction zone for the purpose of conserving vehicle resources.
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 James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights