DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 8/17/2023. Claim(s) 1-12 is/are pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not narrative in form as it is a run-on sentence. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “isoprene (2--methyl-1,3-butadiene”, where a “)” appears to be missing from the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “determining an alertness of the driver a basis of at least one of…” which appears to contain a typographical error, where the limitation should be “determining an alertness of the driver on a basis of at least one of…” for grammatical correctness.
Claim 12 recites “the volatile organic compounds”. While the scope of the claim(s) is reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending to “” since the component has not been previously recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“analyzer” in claim(s) 1-3, 11-12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f). If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Further, the disclosure must be reviewed from the point of view of one skilled in the relevant art to determine whether that person would understand the written description to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2163.03. See also MPEP § 2181.
In this case, claim limitation(s) “analyzer” in claim(s) 1-3, 11-12 lack(s) an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function. Specifically, the instant specification does not describe what the “analyzer 4a” [0047], “analyzer 4b” is [0069], “analyzer 4c” [0076] are to establish that the inventor or joint inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention as of the application's filing date, and thus the claim(s) fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 4-10 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation(s) “analyzer” in claim(s) 1-3, 11-12 invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, as described about in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, there is no disclosure (or insufficient disclosure) of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, and thus the claim(s) is/are indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further, claim(s) 1 recite(s) the limitation “determining an alertness of the driver a basis of at least one of”. This limitation is unclear and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “analyzer” is performing this operation or not due to the differing language (i.e. “determining” vs “determine”) conflicting with the placement of the “determining..” limitation following the language “an analyzer configured to..”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is assuming that the “analyzer” is performing this operation.
Claims 4-10 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hok et al. (US 20150219620 A1) in view of King et al. (“Isoprene and acetone concentration profiles during exercise on an ergometer”).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 12, Hok teaches A device for determining a driver's alertness in a vehicle (“vehicle integration may be an important step towards preventing drunk driving”, [0008]), comprising:
at least one gas sensor (“sensor unit 5”, Fig. 1) configured to continuously monitor at least a portion of a driver's exhalations and/or volatile organic compounds emitted from the skin of the driver (“The system 1 may be built into a separate physical enclosure, or being part of inventories, e.g. in a vehicle cabin. A test person 12 is shown positioned in the vicinity of an inlet area 4 of the sensor unit 5, equipped with a sensor element 8 generating a signal corresponding to the ethyl alcohol concentration of the air flowing through the inlet area 4.”, [0018]); and
an analyzer configured to:
extract at least one volatile biomarker in the exhalations and/or the emitted volatile organic compounds, wherein the biomarker comprises isoprene (2--methyl-1,3-butadiene (“The sensor elements 7 and 8 constitute the receiver ends of a measurement cell for infrared (IR) transmission measurement…Each of the sensor elements 7 and 8 include thermopile detectors of infrared radiation with bandpass interference filters tuned to the absorption peak of the substance to be detected…Other combinations of gases and filter characteristics are possible…isoprene…are examples of volatile substances that may be of interest [] from a diagnostic or toxicological perspective.”, [0024]);
determine an isoprene concentration over a predefined time period to obtain an isoprene concentration profile (see sensor element 8 generating a signal corresponding to the ethyl alcohol concentration of the air flowing through the inlet area 4.”, [0018] citation above);
determine peaks in the isoprene concentration profile (see “the absorption peak of the substance to be detected”, [0024] citation above); and
determining an alertness of the driver a basis of at least one of (“Determination of BrAC is performed by another algorithm based on the correlation between the signals from the sensor elements 7 and 8. When the sensor unit 5 is receiving expired air from a person, both sensor elements exhibit concentration peaks which occur almost simultaneously. An average BrAC value is obtained by multiplying a number of measured alcohol concentrations by their respective dilution factors.”, [0036], see “time sequence”, [0039-0041], Figs. 3a-b):
a
Hok does not explicitly teach
determining an alertness of the driver a basis of at least one of:
a number of peaks within the predefined time period,
a frequency analysis of isoprene concentrations within the predefined time period, and/or
random distributions (scattering) of isoprene concentrations within the predefined time period.
Instead, Hok teaches determining the alertness of the driver on the basis of one peak with the predefined time period (Figs. 3a-b).
However, King teaches
determining an alertness of the driver a basis of at least one of:
a number of peaks within the predefined time period (Figure 6),
a frequency analysis of isoprene concentrations within the predefined time period (Table 2), and/or
random distributions (scattering) of isoprene concentrations within the predefined time period.
King teaches that increases in isoprene levels indicate alertness (“evidence points toward a strong linkage of breath isoprene levels to different physiological states, thus promoting its general use in biomonitoring, e.g., during sleep [12, 44]”, pg. 7, C2, last para., see also “Results isoprene” on pg. 10 which describes that exercise increases isoprene levels, Fig. 6 and Table 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok with the teachings of King such that the determining an alertness of the driver of Hok is based on a number of peaks and/or a frequency analysis of isoprene concentrations within the predefined time period, as suggested by King, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “enable[e] the real-time evaluation of exhaled breath VOC behavior in conjunction with decisive physiological drivers” (pg. 14, C1, second para.), as taught by King.
Regarding claim 2, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, and Hok further teaches comprising:
a sensor (“means of registration 2”, Fig. 1) configured to identify the driver,
wherein the analyzer is configured to adjust at least one of the time period, the determination of the driver's alertness, and/or the driver's identification, in accordance with the identified driver (“The implementation of the means of registration 2 is highly depending on the actual application and could include a microswitch indicating door opening/closure, microphone, camera, contactless detector using ultrasound or infrared radiation, force sensor responding to the weight of the person. It may include means for identification of the person by voice control, image analysis, bar-code reading, or biometric analysis.”, [0019]).
Regarding claim 4, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, and Hok further teaches comprising:
at least one additional sensor (“sensor element 7”, Fig. 1) configured to detect the driver's alertness, wherein the device is also configured to combine the alertness detected by the at least one additional sensor with the determined alertness to obtain an overall alertness level (“another sensor element 7 is included in addition to the element 8, for measuring the concentration of a tracer gas, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2) or water vapor.”, [0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, and Hok further teaches wherein the device is configured to generate visible, and/or tactile, and/or audible signals when the driver's alertness falls below a first predefined alertness level (“the microcontroller 10, which will also be capable of communicating with external units, e.g. an actuator unit for taking action or counteraction depending on the result of the breath test”, [0027], “In the flow diagram of FIG. 2, the further steps taken after termination of the actual breath test are not included, since they may be highly depending on the actual application of the breath test. Such steps may involve rule-based decision for controlling action or counteraction based on the determination, e.g. enable/disable functions of a vehicle or locking/unlocking of door.”, [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, and Hok further teaches wherein the analyzer is configured to:
extract a second volatile biomarker (“carbon dioxide (CO2)”, [0023]);
determine the concentration of isoprene and the second volatile biomarker over the time period to obtain an overall concentration profile (“another sensor element 7 is included in addition to the element 8, for measuring the concentration of a tracer gas, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2) or water vapor.”, [0023], “Each of the sensor elements 7 and 8 include thermopile detectors of infrared radiation with bandpass interference filters tuned to the absorption peak of the substance to be detected.”, [0024]); and
determine the driver's alertness on the basis of the overall concentration profile (“The signals from the sensor elements 7, 8 are brought to an analyzer 10”, [0027], “Determination of BrAC is performed by another algorithm based on the correlation between the signals from the sensor elements 7 and 8. When the sensor unit 5 is receiving expired air from a person, both sensor elements exhibit concentration peaks which occur almost simultaneously. An average BrAC value is obtained by multiplying a number of measured alcohol concentrations by their respective dilution factors.”, [0036]).
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hok et al. (US 20150219620 A1) in view of King et al. (“Isoprene and acetone concentration profiles during exercise on an ergometer”) in view of Migneco et al. (US 10210409 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 2,
Further, Migneco teaches
wherein the analyzer is configured to adjust the time period, the determination of the driver's alertness, and/or the driver identification, through a machine learning process (“Historical long term data related to detected emotional state or drowsiness state can be processed secondary to the real-time algorithms to provide a variety of statistical information for both the occupant and machine learning systems. The long term data may be stored in the vehicle or off-vehicle… The long term emotional state calculations may be used to alter the instructions for determining the emotional state, for mitigating false positives, and for determining the emotional state baseline. The vehicle can use the emotional state and drowsiness state status of the driver to manipulate reaction times of various vehicle safety systems, e.g., the adaptive braking system, to optimize the response of the system itself. This may reduce the risk of forward collisions.”, C8, line 59 – C10, line 7).
Both Hok in view of King and Migneco teach determining an alertness of a driver based on analyzed sensor data. Migneco further teaches updating the determination of the driver's alertness using a machine learning system, Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Migneco such that the determining an alertness of a driver of Hok is adjusted through a machine learning process, as suggested by Migneco, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to manipulate reaction times of various vehicle safety systems, e.g., the adaptive braking system, to optimize the response of the system itself” (C9, lines4-6), as taught by Migneco.
Regarding claim 5, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 4,
Further, Migneco teaches
wherein the at least one additional sensor is comprises an interior camera for detecting driver's eyelid movements, and/or pupil dilations, and/or head positions, and/or yawning frequencies (“This system, is also comprised of inward cameras, strategically positioned to look at the driver. Inward cameras are used in conjunction with the drowsiness detection system to achieve sensor fusion and increase specificity. The camera generates multiple images of the occupant, which can be analyzed to determine additional occupant metrics. The metrics can include head position, a blink rate, a head movement facial expression, and the like.”, C9, lines 60-67).
Both Hok in view of King and Migneco teach determining an alertness of a driver based on analyzed sensor data. Hok teaches the sensor data is of at least one gas sensor and Migneco teaches the sensor data is of an interior camera. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Migneco such that the device of Hok further comprises an interior camera such that the determining an alertness of a driver of Hok is further based on the driver’s blink rate and/or head position and movement, as suggested by Migneco, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “to achieve sensor fusion and increase specificity” (C9, lines 62-63) and “to prevent false indications of occupant state” (C10, line 4), as taught by Migneco.
Regarding claim 6, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 4,
Further, Migneco teaches
wherein the at least one additional sensor comprises a sensor for monitoring a pulse rate and/or for monitoring a breathing frequency (“At 303, the occupant is contactlessly monitored. The EDP is sensed which can include brain waves that indicate drowsiness, an irritation state or an anger state of the occupant. The secondary physiological parameter(s) can also indicate a drowsy state and can include, e.g., deep regular respiration, slowing respiration, slowing heart rate and the like.”, C7, lines 44-50, “A contactless EDP sensing system can be integrated with the seat including one or more sensors embedded in any part of the seat, e.g., the foam, the trim, the headrest or a combination thereof. The contactless EDP sensing system can acquire of the appropriate physiological metrics (heart rate, HRV, breathing rate, EDP pattern shift and the like.) of the seat occupant, e.g., the driver. A controller can receive the sensed physiological metrics and determine if the occupant is drowsy and therefore if attention and reaction time is affected.”, C9, lines 43-52).
Both Hok in view of King and Migneco teach determining an alertness of a driver based on analyzed sensor data. Hok teaches the sensor data is of at least one gas sensor and Migneco teaches the sensor is for monitoring pulse rate and/or breathing rate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Migneco such that the device of Hok further comprises an additional sensor such that the determining an alertness of a driver of Hok is further based on the driver’s pulse rate and/or breathing rate, as suggested by Migneco, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to use multiple sensors to “detect and quantify drowsiness of the occupant” (C5, lines 39-40), as taught by Migneco.
Regarding claim 7, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1,
Hok further teaches “The system 1 can be designed as a stand-alone unit, or as an integrated part of other inventories, e.g. a vehicle compartment”, [0027].
Further, Migneco teaches
wherein the at least one gas sensor is located in a driver's headrest and/or seat belt, and/or in the steering wheel, and/or the back of the driver's seat, and/or in the ceiling above the driver's seat (“A contactless EDP sensing system can be integrated with the seat including one or more sensors embedded in any part of the seat, e.g., the foam, the trim, the headrest or a combination thereof. The contactless EDP sensing system can acquire of the appropriate physiological metrics (heart rate, HRV, breathing rate, EDP pattern shift and the like.) of the seat occupant, e.g., the driver.”, C9, lines 43-49, “A plurality of sensors 150, 155, 156 can be supported in the seat. A plurality of first sensors 150 may be positioned in the headrestraint 203 and adapted to sense EDP signals from the occupant of the seat. A plurality of second sensors 155 may be positioned in the seat back 202.”, C6, lines 54-58).
Both Hok in view of King and Migneco teach determining an alertness of a driver based on analyzed sensor data. Hok teaches the sensor is integrated into the vehicle and Migneco further teaches the sensor is integrated in a driver’s headrest and/or in a back of the driver’s seat. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Migneco such the at least one gas sensor of Hok is located in the driver’s headrest and/or in a back of the driver’s seat, as suggested by Migneco, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to achieve “the individualization of the sensing…[of] the seat occupant” (C5, lines 58-59), as taught by Migneco.
Regarding claim 9, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, the device is configured to generate control signals (“the microcontroller 10, which will also be capable of communicating with external units, e.g. an actuator unit for taking action or counteraction depending on the result of the breath test”, [0027], “In the flow diagram of FIG. 2, the further steps taken after termination of the actual breath test are not included, since they may be highly depending on the actual application of the breath test. Such steps may involve rule-based decision for controlling action or counteraction based on the determination, e.g. enable/disable functions of a vehicle or locking/unlocking of door.”, [0038]).
Further, Migneco teaches
the device is configured to generate control signals for evaluation in an advanced driver assistance system, if the driver's alertness falls below a second predefined alertness level (“The present disclosure is directed to a vehicle system that can detect drowsiness of an occupant in a vehicle seat. Drowsiness can be a feeling of being sleepy and lethargic or sleepiness, without actually falling asleep. In another example, sleeping is the extreme end of drowsiness. The examples used herein can quantify drowsiness up to sleeping. Drowsiness results in increased reactions time for a driver to respond to driving conditions. When the occupant is sleeping, then their drowsiness level would be 100%. In the case of sleeping, a vehicle with autonomous capabilities would take over the driving of the vehicle.”, C10, line 61 – C11, line 4, “A brake system 111 is provided to brake the wheels of the vehicle. The brake system 111 can be activated by the driver and can also be activated automatically by the controller, e.g., when a drowsy state or distracted driving due to an emotional state is detected, a crash is detected as imminent or an imminent danger is detected.”, C6, lines 17-22).
Both Hok in view of King and Migneco teach determining an alertness of a driver based on analyzed sensor data and generating control signals if the driver's alertness falls below a predefined threshold. Migneco further teaches the generated control signals control a vehicle with autonomous capabilities. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Migneco such that if it is determined an alertness of a driver falls below a predefined threshold, the device of Hok is further configured to generate control signals for evaluation in an advanced driver assistance system, as suggested by Migneco, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to mitigate a crash of the vehicle, as taught by Migneco (C6, lines 17-22).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hok et al. (US 20150219620 A1) in view of King et al. (“Isoprene and acetone concentration profiles during exercise on an ergometer”) in view of Reeve et al. (US 8237927 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Hok in view of King teach The device according to claim 1, comprising a second gas sensor (“sensor element 7”, Fig. 1), wherein the second gas sensor configured to continuously detect volatile organic compounds (“another sensor element 7 is included in addition to the element 8, for measuring the concentration of a tracer gas, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2) or water vapor.”, [0023]).
Further, Reeve teaches
wherein the second gas sensor configured to continuously detect volatile organic compounds emitted from the driver's skin (“that odors given off by the body, in particular those odors associated with exhaled breath, could be utilized as an indicator of health.”, C2, lines 31-33, “There are over 3000 volatile organic compounds (VOC's) in exhaled breath of humans, many of which are also released by the skin or other biological surfaces exposed to air.”, C3, lines 9-12).
Both Hok in view of King and Reeve teach sensors configured to continuously detect VOCs emitted from a person. Hok teaches the sensor is integrated into a vehicle to detect VOCs emitted from a driver and Reeve teaches the sensor is configured to detect VOCs emitted from person’s skin. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Hok in view of King with the teachings of Reeve such the second gas sensor of Hok is configured to detect VOCs emitted from the driver’s skin, as suggested by Reeve, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be because “odors given off by the body, in particular those odors associated with exhaled breath, could be utilized as an indicator of health” (C2, lines 31-33), as taught by Reeve.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666