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 Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/26/2025. Claims 1 and 4-6 are considered in this office action. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending examination. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. Applicant's amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection therefore, claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
It is not a mental process to acquire a number of lane changes detected by at least a turn signal switch sensor of a vehicle, or transmit first information and a result of the first driving diagnosis to the user terminal when the results of the first information in a display element on the display.
Regarding amended claim 1, D2 (Tajima) does not address determining that the results of the first driving diagnosis satisfies the first condition “when the first frequency is equal to or less than a second threshold”.
In amended claim 1, D3 (Wang) does not address the comparison of the first frequency with both a first threshold and a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold.
Regarding argument A: The amended claims still recite acquiring driving data such as lane change counts and turn signal duration, evaluating the data against thresholds to perform a driving diagnosis, and transmitting information for recommending installable sensors. This is an abstract idea of data collection, analysis and presentation of results, including targeted recommendations. This is akin to mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of generic servers, processors, user terminals, and displays are recited but they perform their conventional functions of receiving, processing, and outputting information. This fails to integrate the exemption into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Applicant’s arguments B-C, with respect to the independent claims has been fully considered and is moot in light of new grounds for rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 4-6 recite an information processing device, therefore claims 1-5 fall within one of the four statutory categories of an invention, a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites acquiring driving behavior data, performing a diagnosis, and transmitting a recommendation. These steps reflect the abstract ideas of a mental process and organizing human activity.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It uses generic components and performs routine functions of processing and transmitting data. There is no improvement to any underlying technology or specific technical solution.
The dependent claims 4-6 do not add limitations that meaningfully change the above eligibility analysis. They merely add behavioral evaluations and recommendations that fall within abstract ideas and lack inventive concepts. Accordingly the claims are an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 4-6, taken individually or collectively do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All the discloses components and steps are conventional and routine in nature as discussed above. This alone cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 4-6 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 4-6 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claims 1 and 4-6, otherwise styled as other means, would be subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected as being unpatentable over Mählisch(DE102010047411A1) in view of Fang et al (Analysis of Pedestrian Lane Change Behavior Spectrum Based on Video Data at Ticket Gate Facilities in Subway Stations).
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Mählisch discloses, an information processing device comprising a control unit (0011, the pool containing the driver assistance function profiles can be created using the same processing unit that performs the initial steps of analyzing the driving data and creating the vehicle usage profile), that executes: acquiring a first frequency that is a frequency of a lane change per unit time of a first vehicle (0023, the driving data FD recorded in this way, which is used to create the vehicle usage profile FNP, The driving data can include … the frequency of lane changes and overtaking maneuvers), performing a first driving diagnosis (0024, after this vehicle usage profile (FNP) has been created, a suitable assistance function, i.e. the most useful one for this vehicle user (FN), can be recommended), based on the first frequency (0025, a very sporty driver, whose behavior can be identified by frequent lane changes and overtaking maneuvers, could be recommended to use blind spot monitoring), and transmitting a result of the first driving diagnosis to a first terminal (0026-0027, in addition to vehicle-based assistance systems, this system is also conceivable for mobile devices such as smartphones SP with driver assistance functions. The described and in the procedure outlined for creating a recommendation for a user profile-adapted driver assistance system can be carried out using a2presented architecture), when the result of the first driving diagnosis satisfies a first condition (0023, the frequency of lane changes and overtaking maneuvers, which are indicators of a sporty or more defensive driving style), and transmitting first information to a first terminal (0024, after this vehicle usage profile (FNP) has been created, a suitable assistance function, i.e. the most useful one for this vehicle user (FN), can be recommended using the software available on the App Store®). wherein the first information includes information describing vehicle sensors for assisting a driver operation related to the lane change ( 0025, a very sporty driver, whose behavior can be identified by frequent lane changes and overtaking maneuvers, could be recommended to use blind spot monitoring (a module for monitoring the side and rear blind spots with visual and/or acoustic warnings)), and this is installable on the vehicle (Mählisch (0031, the method according to the invention can be extended in such a way that the recommended driver assistance function can be acquired in this way and subsequently installed or activated in order to provide the recommended driver assistance function in the vehicle that is tailored to the vehicle use), and the user terminal displays the received first information in a display element on the display, (0025, blind spot monitoring (a module for monitoring the side and rear blind spots with visual and/or acoustic warnings)) … (0026, in addition to vehicle-based assistance systems, this system is also conceivable for mobile devices such as smartphones SP with driver assistance functions).
However, Mählisch does not explicitly disclose the first condition being satisfied when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, or the first frequency is equal to or less than a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold.
Nevertheless, Fang who is in the same field of endeavor of lane change behaviors discloses, the first condition being satisfied when the first frequency is equal to or greater than a first threshold, or the first frequency is equal to or less than a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold (3.3. Construction Method of Pedestrian Lane Change Behavior Spectrum, in this research, the quartile method was used as a method to determine the threshold value of indicators of lane change behavior to obtain the upper and lower threshold range, which could be further used as a basis for distinguishing abnormal lane change behavior),
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mählisch’s disclosure to incorporate teachings of Fang for the benefit of having specific dual sided lane change frequency test to trigger a different diagnosis. This would allow stakeholders to choose their specified threshold requirements.
Further justification for combining Mählisch and Tajima’s disclosure not only come from the state-of-the-art but from Mählisch (0031, the method according to the invention can be extended in such a way that the recommended driver assistance function can be acquired in this way and subsequently installed or activated in order to provide the recommended driver assistance function in the vehicle that is tailored to the vehicle use).
Regarding claim 4, Mählisch and Fang disclose, the vehicle driving operation diagnosis system according to claim 1, as discussed supra. Additionally, Mählisch discloses, the vehicle sensors detect whether moving objects are present in a blind spot of the vehicle, the blind spot including areas diagonally behind the vehicle on both sides, (0025, blind spot monitoring (a module for monitoring the side and rear blind spots with visual and/or acoustic warnings)), and notify a user of the vehicle of the presence of the moving objects in the blind spot of the vehicle in response to the detection of the moving objects (0022, use blind spot monitoring (a blind spot monitoring module on the side and rear with visual and / or audible warning)).
Claim 5 is rejected as being unpatentable over Mählisch (DE102010047411A1) in view of Fang et al (Analysis of Pedestrian Lane Change Behavior Spectrum Based on Video Data at Ticket Gate Facilities in Subway Stations), further in view of Wang et al (CN113298361A).
Regarding claim 5, Mählisch and Fang disclose, the information processing device according to claim 1, as discussed supra. However, Mählisch does not explicitly disclose, the control unit further executes: acquiring a turn signal operating time when the first vehicle changes lanes performing a second driving diagnosis based on the turn signal operating time and transmitting the first information and a result of the second driving diagnosis to the first terminal when the result of the second driving diagnosis satisfies a third condition.
Nevertheless, Wang who is in the same field of endeavor of dangerous driving behavior evaluation methods discloses, acquiring a turn signal operating time when the first vehicle changes lanes (S201, the occurrence of alarm events such as lane departure) … (S401, specifically, the first evaluation index refers to one or more of the …flashing of the turn signal of the vehicle when the current alarm event occurs) … (S202, the number of times of flashing of the turn signal is the number of times of flashing of the turn signal in a time period), performing a second driving diagnosis (S402, inputting the first evaluation index into the discriminant model, and outputting a first traffic conflict index) … (S403, determining the level of the current dangerous driving behavior according to the first traffic conflict index) based on the turn signal operating time (S202, the number of times of flashing of the turn signal is the number of times of flashing of the turn signal in a time period); and a result of the second driving diagnosis (Detailed Description, 0014, the evaluation system of the embodiment of the application acquires first sensing data inside and outside a vehicle through the sensor, stores the first sensing data in the memory of the electronic equipment, and when the sensor or the electronic equipment identifies that the first sensing data contains dangerous driving behaviors and triggers an alarm event), to the first terminal (Detailed Description, 0014, the electronic equipment acquires the first sensing data before and after the alarm event acquired by the sensor occurs and obtains the grade of the current dangerous driving behaviors according to the first sensing data); when the result of the second driving diagnosis satisfies a third condition (0014, when the sensor or the electronic equipment identifies that the first sensing data contains dangerous driving behaviors).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mählisch and Fang to incorporate teachings of Wang for the benefit of having an additional metrics for evaluating driver performance. This bolsters a user’s driving awareness and promotes safer driving behavior.
Further justification for combining the combination of Mählisch and Fang with Wang not only come from the state-of-the-art but from Wang (skilled artisans may implement the described functionality in varying ways for each particular application, but such implementation decisions should not be interpreted as causing a departure from the scope of the present application).
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over Mählisch (DE102010047411A1) in view of Fang et al (Analysis of Pedestrian Lane Change Behavior Spectrum Based on Video Data at Ticket Gate Facilities in Subway Stations), further in view of Mantouka et al. (A Multi-level Approach to Link Smooth Driving with Safe Driver Behavior).
Regarding claim 6, Mählisch and Fang disclose the vehicle driving operation diagnosis system according to claim 1, as discussed supra. Additionally, Mantouka who is in the same field of endeavor of analyzing driving for safe driver behavior discloses, a number of lane changes and a driving time of the vehicle for trips in which a number of lane changes is below a lower limit value are excluded from the ratio of the total number of lane changes to the total driving time of the vehicle within the predetermined time period (Data Collection, 15-17, trips were excluded from the analysis performed in this study based on the criteria of duration, 16 distance and road type. To this end, trips with a duration lower than 10 minutes and a distance lower than 17 5 kilometers were excluded as well).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mählisch and Fang to incorporate teachings of Mantouka for the benefit excluding trips that do not contain a sufficient number of lane change events when computing a drivers lane change index. Mählisch already teaches computing a lane change frequency as the ratio of the total number of lane changes. Additionally, Mantouka teaches that it is routine to exclude trips whose characteristics make them unrepresentative for computing aggregate indices, which improve the reliability of the metric. Given this teaching a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that trips with a very small number of lane changes and driving time should be excluded.
Further justification for combining the combination of Mählisch and Fang with Mantouka not only come from the state-of-the-art but from Mantouka (Data Collection, in order to capture the main (average) driving profile of each 19 individual a minimum of 100 trips per driver was set as the lower limit for a driver to be included in the 20 analysis.).
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 SHANE E DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (703)756-1417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/S.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665