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 patent application filed on November 20, 2025. Claims 11-15, 17-18, & 21-22 are currently pending. Claims 16 & 19-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. FR2106317, filed on June 15, 2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The examiner acknowledges the IDS submitted above is the corrected version of the original IDS submitted December 14, 2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on November 20, 2025 have rendered the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations in the non-final office filed August 20, 2025 moot and therefore are withdrawn.
The amendments have corrected the recommended claim objections, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
The amendments have not addressed the pending 35 USC 112(b) rejections, therefore the rejections are maintained.
The amendments have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections, therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC 101, claim objections, and 35 USC 112(b) rejections, see the Response to Amendment section above.
Applicant's arguments filed November 20, 2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gallagher does not teach the level of availability of a driver which is calculated based on at least one of the physiological condition of the driver and condition of the vehicle. The applicant further argues that “the computation of the claimed availability of a driver is instead a determination, from physiological conditions and conditions of the vehicle, if the driver is available to safely engage in more intensive relaxing or stimulating services which may otherwise be distracting from properly operating the motor vehicle. However, the examiner disagrees. The term “availability” does not have a specific definition in the art and is therefore being interpreted as the driver’s state of being. In this case, the driver’s state of being is being determined by the biomedical analytics data of the invention of Gallagher. Any conclusive result (e.g. high temperature or low heart rate) are the “availability” of the driver. If a more narrow definition of availability is desired, it should be done so in future amended claims. With respect to the applicant’s definition of “availability”, Gallagher also discloses [0052] in which the data collected from the invention of Gallagher is used to determine if their cognitive attention level attention (i.e. Availability) being above a threshold amount.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 as amended recites …and the driving assistance system;; and… It is recommended to remove one of the duplicate semicolons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11-15, 17-18, & 21-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term …relaxing… in claims 11-15, 17-18, & 21-22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term …relaxing… is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the terms method and stimulating services are rendered indefinite. For examination on its merits, the term …relaxing… will be interpreted as something that makes the driver more calm, such as reduction of heart rate.
The term …stimulating… in claims 11-15, 17-18, & 21-22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term …stimulating… is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the terms method and stimulating services are rendered indefinite. For examination on its merits, the term …stimulating… will be interpreted as something that makes the driver less calm, such as an increase of heart rate.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 11-12, 14, 18 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0031786 A1 to Gallagher et al. (hereafter Gallagher).
Regarding Claim 11, Gallagher discloses A method for executing a relaxing or stimulating service for a driver of a motor vehicle equipped with processing circuitry and a memory in which a list of services configured for the driver is stored, the method comprising (Gallagher [0034] & [0053], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses memory which contains with a list of services (e.g. audio adjustment, environmental conditions, lighting):
measuring a physiological condition of the driver with at least one of a camera, a heart rate monitor, and an electrodermal activity sensr (Gallagher [0025], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses biometric sensors measuring data such as heart rate (i.e. heart rate monitor));
detecting, with the processing circuity, a physiological state of the driver from at least one of the physiological condition of the driver and a need of the driver, the need of the driver being provided by the driver to a human-machine interface of the vehicle (Gallagher [0040] & Fig. 3A, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses biometric sensors in order to sense the biometric conditions of the driver (i.e. physiological condition) which includes heart rate, breathing rate, and brain activity);
detecting a condition of the vehicle by way of at least one out of a driving assistance system, a speedometer, an engine control module, a temperature sensor, and a global positioning system of the vehicle or a connected device (Gallagher [0032] & [0041], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses detecting interior and exterior environmental and vehicle system states (i.e. contexts) which would include seat or cabin temperature);
computing, with processing circuitry, a level of availability of the driver based on at least one of the physiological condition of the driver and the condition of the vehicle (Gallagher [0044], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses the occupant state (i.e. availability) via a biomedical analytics platform);
consulting user preferences of the driver that are saved in the memory (Gallagher [0039], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses a user profile for the driver which the vehicle would use to adjust the vehicle interior conditions to optimize biometric response (i.e. preferences));
consulting data characterizing at least one level of experience that the driver has of using the relaxing or stimulating services (Gallagher [0044] & Fig. 3B, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses using occupant prior history (i.e. experience) classification 66 in order to control the interior environmental condition in the vehicle); selecting, with the processing circuitry at least one relaxing or stimulating service from the list of services, configured for the driver based on the physiological state of the driver or based on the need of the driver, based on the level of availability of driver, based on the user preferences of the driver, and based on the data characterizing the level of experience of the driver of the vehicle (Gallagher [0039]-[0044] & Fig. 3B, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses using: current biometric sensor inputs (i.e. driver’s need) 56, occupant state 54 (i.e. availability), user profile (i.e. preference) 38, occupant prior history (i.e. experience) classification 66 in order to control the interior environmental condition in the vehicle); and
executing, with at least one of a light, air-conditioner, speaker, olfactory ambiance producer, heater, air conditioning system, and vibrating motor, the at least one relaxing or stimulating service (Gallagher [0032], [0039]-[0040] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses adjusting vehicle interior conditions as a result of the user profile and biometric data which includes heating, cooling, and lighting).
Regarding Claim 12, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or stimulating service as claimed in claim 11, further comprising: a first selection phase of selecting a first subset of services, comprising at least one service, within the list of services, the first selection phase being carried out based on the physiological state of the driver in order to correct the pysiological state of the driver or the first selection phase being carried out based on the need of the driver in order to address said need (Gallagher [0040]-[0041] & Fig. 3A, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses a biomedical analytics platform (i.e. first selection phase) 48 which is a reinforced learning feedback loop which uses occupant biometric condition data (i.e. physiological state of the driver) in order to determine how to adjust the interior or exterior environmental inputs (i.e. services) to better comfort the driver), and then a second selection phase of selecting a second subset of services, within the first subset, carried out based on the level of availability of the driver, based on the user preferences of the driver and based on the level of experience of the driver (Gallagher [0041] & Fig. 3A, Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses using occupant state classification (i.e. second selection phase based on driver availability) 54, which is located within the biomedical analytics platform (i.e. first selection phase) in order to determine how to adjust the interior or exterior environmental inputs (i.e. services) to better comfort the driver.
Regarding Claim 14, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or stimulating service as claimed in claim 11, wherein the detecting the physiological state of the driver comprises: measuring at least one emotional parameter of the driver (Gallagher [0023]-[0024], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses sensing biometrics of the driver which includes heart, lung, skin, brain (i.e. emotional), and muscle functions);
and/or detecting at least one abnormal or risky driving behavior from at least one of the physiological state of the driver and the driving assistance system (Gallagher [0023]-[0024], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses detecting assessing based on metrics in order to optimize biometric levels when the driver may be in an un-optimized scenario (i.e. abnormal or risky) (e.g. driver in an alert but relaxed operation condition early in the morning)); and
classifying the physiological state of the driver based on the emotional parameter of the driver and/or based on the abnormal or risky driving behavior of the driver, a service being selected when an abnormal state of the driver is detected (Gallagher [0042], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses determining the occupant state classification which is used to determine a service to optimize biometric readings).
Regarding Claim 18, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or a stimulating service as claimed in claim 11, further, following the executing the at least one relaxing or stimulating service, saving the level of experience of the driver in relation to the relaxing or stimulating service or modifying a previously stored level of experience of the driver in relation to the relaxing or stimulating service (Gallagher [0044], Examiner Note: Gallagher discloses having occupant prior history classification (i.e. experience) which would update with currently used services once complete).
Regarding Claim 21, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 21 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 11; Therefore, claim 21 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 11, and it has been determined that claim 22 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 11; Therefore, claim 22 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0031786 A1 to Gallagher et al. (hereafter Gallagher) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2021/0272394 A1, to Cella.
Regarding Claim 13, as shown above, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or stimulating service as claimed in claim 11,… implemented when a plurality of services are available at an end of the selecting at least one relaxing or stimulating service based on: the level of availability, the user preferences, and the level of availability, the use preferences, and the level of experience of the driver.
However, Gallagher does not specifically disclose further comprising a random selection step,
Cella, directed to the same problem, teaches further comprising a random selection step (Cella [0280] Examiner Note: Cella teaches performing randomized combinations of services (e.g. entertainment settings, seat settings, suspsension settings)),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for controlling interior and exterior environmental conditions based on biometric conditions of a driver of Gallagher with the random service selection of Cella in order to promote favorable combinations and eliminate unfavorable ones (Cella [0280]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0031786 A1 to Gallagher et al. (hereafter Gallagher) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 11,294,370 B2, to Hoye.
Regarding Claim 15, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or stimulating service as claimed in claim 11,
However, Gallagher does not specifically disclose wherein the consulting the level of experience of the driver comprises determining the level of experience of using the services based on a number of occurrences of the driver executing the services, and comparing the level of experience with an experience index, specific to each service and defining a minimum level of experience required by the driver to execute the service correctly, the service being selected when the experience index is lower than or equal to the detected level of experience of the driver.
Hoye, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the consulting the level of experience of the driver comprises determining the level of experience of using the services based on a number of occurrences of the driver executing the services driver (Hoye Col. 13 Rows 38-64 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Hoye discloses monitoring a level of engagement of a driver by requiring the driver to perform at least (i.e. a number of occurences) a threshold (i.e. index) of maneuvers), and comparing the level of experience with an experience index, specific to each service and defining a minimum level of experience required by the driver to execute the service correctly, the service being selected when the experience index is lower than or equal to the detected level of experience of the driver (Hoye Col. 13 Rows 38-64 & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Hoye then determines that if the number of successfully performed maneuvers is less than a threshold, 608, , the coaching (i.e. service) begins, 612).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for controlling interior and exterior environmental conditions based on biometric conditions of a driver of Gallagher with the quantity threshold of Hoye in order to better engage a driver in terms of alertness (Hoye Col. 14 Rows 26-30).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0031786 A1 to Gallagher et al. (hereafter Gallagher)as applied to claims 11 & 16 above, and further in view of US 2008/0180257 A1, to Omi et al. (hereafter Omi).
Regarding Claim 17, Gallagher discloses The method for executing a relaxing or a stimulating service as claimed in claim 11,
However, Gallagher does not specifically disclose further comprising blocking a repetition of the so as to prevent successive execution of services within an interval of a duration less than a predefined threshold value.
Omi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising blocking a repetition of the so as to prevent successive execution of services within an interval of a duration less than a predefined threshold value (Omi [0007], Examiner Note: Omi discloses a prior art, which determines the waking state of a driver. This prior art teaches performing a stimulus in the form of a smell to the driver (i.e. executing the service in an execution cycle) and does not perform (i.e. preventing) the stimulus again until a time period has passed (i.e. interval of a duration less than a predefined threshold value)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for controlling interior and exterior environmental conditions based on biometric conditions of a driver of Gallagher with the wakefulness device of Omi in order to keep a driver awake while also prevent an uncomfortable feeling in the driver by making the smells too frequent (Omi [0008]).
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666