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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While it may be true that Burton displays the relevant information to the user, this does not equate to "the mobile terminal includes a processor configured to analyze a frequency component in the received electroencephalogram signal and to quantify the careless state of the driver using the analyzed frequency component." Merely having the ability to display information to a user does not mean that the mobile terminal includes a processor configured to analyze any received signal and to quantify the careless state of the driver using the analyzed frequency component. That programming would not be necessary to merely display information to a user, which is all that Burton teaches. (page 6)
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).
In this case, Lim was relied upon to teach “a processor configured to analyze a frequency component…” (see Non-Final of 10/21/25 page 4). Lim’s system has display capability and it clearly processes the data, it just doesn’t explicitly state a mobile terminal… via an app. Burton is relied upon to teach receiving EEG data that is recorded by a wearable device and displayed on a mobile device via an app (at least 0135-0136, 0218-0219 where data exchanges are transmitted between a monitoring device for EEG and a smart phone/smart watch both of which would correspond to a mobile terminal). In particular, 0107-0110, discloses that the EEG monitored data and parameters are transmitted from the forehead monitoring device to a phone/smart watch. Burton also discloses at 0233-248 the combination of a headband and mobile devices that monitor and display both raw and processed data corresponding to EEG, EMG and EOG data. Furthermore, Burton shows apps in figures 6a-c, along with apps and monitoring devices in figure 27.
Thus, it is the combination that teaches the claims, that is to say, modifying Lim’s processor to use a mobile phone/smartwatch app for displaying as taught by Barton would result in applicant’s invention.
Applicant further argues:
An "app" is not inherently required simply because information is displayed on a mobile device. A mobile device may display content via, for example, a browser interface, embedded OS functions, firmware, or other software not meeting the claim's "app" requirement. Inherency cannot be used to presume the specific functional configuration recited in claim 1, namely, a mobile-terminal processor that performs frequency analysis and quantification. (Page 6)
Applicant’s specification doesn’t specifically define what an “app” is. Applicant’s specification discloses receiving an electroencephalogram signal measured by the wearable device (and sending it to a remote server for processing) and in a related embodiment outputting it for display to a user. See 0028, 0035, figure 6 and 0127-132 with respect to the App. Furthermore 0132 discloses that it is installed on a mobile terminal, without further definition. Thus, it can be considered to be any software stored on the mobile terminal, and Barton clearly utilizes software of some kind.
Applicant’s disclosure also discusses an “application program” discussed at 0081 and 0088 (For example, memory 123 may store an application program designed to perform various tasks that may be processed by the processor 125, and may selectively provide some of the stored application programs upon request from the processor 125… Additionally, the processor 125 may control all or some of the components included in the mobile terminal 120 by running the application program stored in the memory 123.) It is somewhat unclear if applicant considers the “app” and “application program” to be the same functionality or not, based off the specification given the separate terms, however applicant appears to be arguing that there may be system level functions and application level functionalities, but applicant’s specification doesn’t distinguish this in any way.
With that in mind, lets define an “application”:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201128164520/https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/application (version from 11/28/2020)
A software program hosted by an information system.
A system for collecting, saving, processing, and presenting data by means of a computer. The term application is generally used when referring to a component of software that can be executed. The terms application and software application are often used synonymously.
The BRI of the term “app” if applicant wishes it to be interpreted as an “application” is a software program hosted by an information system. In this case, Burton discloses an “app” because he has a system which utilizes software that collects data from a sensor to a mobile device, it must save it because at least containing the data in a local memory is saving, it must be processed into a displayable format, and it is presented to the user. As this is performed on a mobile device, it is a mobile application. Therefore, Burton inherently utilizes an “app”. Furthermore, Burton in figure 6a-6c, shows a number of “eHealth apps” to which Burton is directed.
If an “app” is to be interpreted as any software present on a mobile device, then as discussed above Burton also discloses that as well. If an “app” is to be something other than an “application program” or is to be considered something apart from a system level component of an operating system, further amendments are required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2021/0103035 A to Lim et al in view of US 2021/0169417 A1 to Burton.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Lim discloses a system and corresponding method (figure 1) for assisting a driver using an electroencephalogram (EEG analyzing system 212), the system comprising:
an electroencephalogram measurer configured to measure an electroencephalogram signal of the driver (para 13-14 The EEG measurement unit includes an earset including electrodes that are in contact with the driver and receive EEG input, and the EEG measurement unit may transmit EEG input from the earset to the determination unit through wireless communication.
The determination unit may Fourier transform the EEG measured by the EEG measurement unit to analyze the frequency component, and extract feature points according to the analyzed frequency component to determine the driver's concentration on driving.);
a controller 502 configured to receive the measured electroencephalogram signal and to output a careless state of the driver determined based on the received electroencephalogram (para 14/43, The determination unit further includes a storage unit that determines a change in the driver's concentration level according to a stimulus that provides a notification to the driver, and stores stimulus information in which the determination unit shows the greatest change in the driver's concentration level; and, in the determination unit, the storage unit It is possible to provide a notification to the driver based on the stimulus information … According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for assisting a driver using brain waves to achieve the above object, comprising the steps of: measuring a driver's brain waves; determining the driver's concentration on driving by using the EEG measured by the EEG measurement unit; and providing a notification to the driver through stimulation based on the determined concentration level. A concentration level corresponds to a carelessness level.),
a controller 1202 configured to control a vehicle based on the determined careless state of the driver(para 18-20,43, 75-85 lights, AC, smells, seat massagers and alarms may all be activated to alert the driver)
a processor configured to analyze a frequency component in the received electroencephalogram signal and to quantify the careless state of the driver using the analyzed frequency component (para 15-16, 59-62 The determination unit may Fourier transform the EEG measured by the EEG measurement unit to analyze the frequency component, and extract feature points according to the analyzed frequency component to determine the driver's concentration on driving.
The determination unit may classify a plurality of bands according to frequency components, calculate a power spectral density for each band, and extract a feature point according to a magnitude of the calculated spectral density.).
While Lim discloses processors monitoring EEG of a driver as discussed above and that they may be any device or system that is configured to detect a parameter of the brain of a driver at 0111, Lim fails to specifically disclose a mobile terminal with an app that performs the analysis.
Burton discloses a system that monitors driver behavior which includes both vehicle inputs from a user as well as EEG data from wearable diagnostic equipment, to determine the drowsiness of a user and provide alerts to the user such as alarms, or vibrations (01978-1989), this data can be recorded via wearable device and sent to a phone (0134-0136). As Burton discloses that this data may be displayed to a user (0219, 0233-0238), it inherently utilizes an app.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have monitored the EEG monitoring system of Lim to utilize the mobile phone with wearable EEG monitor device of Burton for the advantages of providing additional alerts to the user via vibrations and provide the ability to display additional data to the user as to their health and awareness, thus providing additional ways to keep the driver alert and aware of their surroundings.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Lim discloses, wherein the processor is configured to analyze the frequency component in the received electroencephalogram signal via a window size in a first-time unit (Para 59-62, it is implicit that multiple time windows are analyzed as Lim discloses that concentration monitoring is performed in real time).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Lim discloses, wherein the processor is configured to shift the window size into a second time unit on a time axis and analyze the frequency component based on the window size (para 59-62, it is implicit that multiple time windows are analyzed as Lim discloses that concentration monitoring is performed in real time).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Lim teaches
wherein the processor is configured to analyze the frequency component by classifying the frequency component by performing Fourier transform on the received electroencephalogram signal,
wherein the classified frequency component includes at least one of theta, beta, or SMR frequencies (para 62, beta/gamma frequencies and FFTs are used).
Burton also discloses at 3983, that the monitored EEG can be subjected to Fourier transforms to segment the data into DFT spectral components, at the bands of 1-15hz, 16-50hz, 51-100z, 101-200hz, and 201-500hz. As the first band range of 1-15hz may be segmented, this includes theta, beta and SMR ranges. These ranges are corelated with different types of cognition and behavior such as memory and spatial navigation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lim and Burton discloses the feature of:
wherein the processor is configured to use the classified frequency component to quantify the careless state of the driver into a numerical value(see para 18-20 and 62).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lim and Burton disclose the limitations of:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the careless state of the driver by comparing the numerical value with a preset alertness value. (para 18-20).
Regarding claim 7, Burton is relied upon to teach:
wherein the mobile terminal is configured to output at least one of an emoji, a text, a color, and the received electroencephalogram signal via the app. In particular burton discloses that the EEG data may be displayed on the mobile device, which requires an app, and displaying this data requires a color as otherwise it would not be displayable (0223-0237).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of wherein the mobile terminal is configured to output a navigation screen or a number of alarms provided to the driver via the app are met by the previous discussion of Lim and Burton. The combination discloses that Burton may output alerts to the user via vibrations of a steering wheel, seat or audible alarms.
Regarding claim 9, Burton is relied upon to disclose wherein the controller is configured to provide the alarm to the driver by controlling the vehicle, including at least one of a display, an interior light, an air conditioner, a seat, and a speaker of the vehicle. As disclose with respect to claim 1, both Lim and Burton may take control of the vehicle, and Burton also discloses an alarm via a speaker or vibration of a seat.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to neither disclose nor sufficiently suggest the subject matter of claim 10 as claimed and arranged by applicant when read in light of the specification.
While the Lim, Burton and Lee disclose systems where mobile devices receive and process EEG signals from a wearable device, they fails to specifically disclose a carelessness alarm that includes at least on information on which a moving path or location carelessness occurs, information on in what time period the carelessness occurs, and information on under what weather the carelessness occurs.
Claims 10-11, and 14-16 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HUNTER B LONSBERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-7298. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, TC Director James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
HUNTER B. LONSBERRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665