DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 11-12, 18-19, and 21 are examined.
Claims 11-12, 18, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 13-17 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-11 were previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive and/or moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Objections are withdrawn.
112 Rejections
This rejection is withdrawn.
101 Rejection
This rejection is withdrawn.
103 Rejection
Rejections are withdrawn however in light of the amendments the claims are reevaluated.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 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 11-12, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over machine translation of CN112289003 (“Liu”) in further view Pub. No. US 20160104050 (“Bogner”).
As per claim 11 Liu discloses a method for determining a hands-off time for an automated motor vehicle, comprising [pg.2 ¶1 invention relates… early warning monitoring alarm and high level driving function hand-off time strategy of the driver]:
determining an alertness level of a driver of the motor vehicle over time [abstract: a driver fatigue driving… behaviour monitoring… continuously detecting the head posture of the driver; comparing the database face data… determining driver behavior… determine driver deities degree];
determining the hands-off time based on the alertness level of a driver of the motor vehicle determined over time [pg.3 ¶3 The sight tracking method of driver can effectively judge the sight and living body of the driver, predict the different degree of deities of the driver, further applied to the driver of the automatic driving for judging the hand-off time]; and
wherein the alertness level of the driver is determined based on a behavior of the driver [pg.3 ¶2 a driver fatigue and non-driving behavior monitoring (as in monitoring the driver themselves) method based on sight tracking technology, pg.3 ¶5 collecting the vehicle inner and outer and driver face data by the camera]:
wherein the behavior of the driver is determined by determining a predefined positive behavior of the driver that leads to an increase in alertness level, and by determining a predefined negative behavior of the driver that leads to a decrease in alertness level [pg.3 ¶2 a driver fatigue and non-driving behavior monitoring (referencing monitoring the driver themselves and not based on the driving sensors), pg.3 ¶8 determining driving behaviour]:
wherein the predefined positive behavior and the predefined negative behavior of the driver are determined based on a tiredness of the driver[pg.3 ¶3 sight tracking method of driver… judge the sight and living body of the driver, predict the different degree of deities of the driver (deities of driver is understood as amount/degree of fatigue/tiredness, a not fatigue driver would be understood as positive, while determining fatigued driver would be negative)]:
wherein the tiredness of the driver is determined based on line of sight orientation and eye state [pg. 3;¶8 3) using the stable view line method to accurately locate the characteristic point in the image, self-adaptively establishing head 3 D model, determining the driver behaviour, head orientation, line of sight orientation, eye state and outputting the result]: and
activating a steering and lane control assist system in the automated motor vehicle based on the tiredness of the driver to control movement of the automated motor vehicle in a lane and facilitate automated lane changing [pg.4 ¶4 the danger level is divided into 5 levels of allowing the driver different from the hand-off time… will exit the automatic driving function (hand-off time is understood to at least include steering and lane control assist)].
Lui discloses line of sight and eye state of the driver but is silent to the specifics i.e. being based on a blink analysis including an eyelid closure time and a blink rate.
Bogner discloses wherein the tiredness(alertness) of the driver is determined based on a blink analysis including an eyelid closure time and a blink rate [¶ 9 blink time of driver exceeds the period, ¶ 10 The eyelid closing time can thus denote the period that is required for changing the state of the eyelid, ¶ 11 continuous or interval time determinations… or in a manner averaged over a plurality of monitoring processes, whether the degree of attentiveness is still adequate (averaging over multiple processes would also quantify a type of blink rate), ¶ 43 it would alternatively or additionally also be possible for the blink time to denote an eyelid closing time, i.e. a period of time that the eyelid requires for changing between the open and closed states (this would be a rate which a blink happens), Fig. 3 (Eyelid closed time), Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Lui with the teachings of Bogner for purposes of making determinations about a monitored driver by collecting data on driver cues for making decisions on the status of driver regarding degrees of capabilities by using observable driver factors for improving safety decisions generated by automated controls.
As per claim 21 Lui discloses a system for a motor vehicle, comprising: a control unit that determines a hands-off time for an automated motor vehicle, the control unit being operatively configured to [pg.2 ¶1 invention relates… early warning monitoring alarm and high level driving function hand-off time strategy of the driver]:
determine an alertness level of a driver of the motor vehicle over time [abstract: a driver fatigue driving… behaviour monitoring… continuously detecting the head posture of the driver; comparing the database face data… determining driver behavior… determine driver deities degree]; and
determine the hands-off time based on the alertness level of a driver of the motor vehicle determined over time determine [pg.3 ¶3 The sight tracking method of driver can effectively judge the sight and living body of the driver, predict the different degree of deities of the driver, further applied to the driver of the automatic driving for judging the hand-off time].
wherein the alertness level of the driver is determined based on a behavior of the driver [pg.3 ¶2 a driver fatigue and non-driving behavior monitoring (as in monitoring the driver themselves) method based on sight tracking technology, pg.3 ¶5 collecting the vehicle inner and outer and driver face data by the camera]:
wherein the behavior of the driver is determined by determining a predefined positive behavior of the driver that leads to an increase in alertness level, and by determining a predefined negative behavior of the driver that leads to a decrease in alertness level [pg.3 ¶2 a driver fatigue and non-driving behavior monitoring (referencing monitoring the driver themselves and not based on the driving sensors), pg.3 ¶8 determining driving behaviour]:
wherein the predefined positive behavior and the predefined negative behavior of the driver are determined based on a tiredness of the driver[pg.3 ¶3 sight tracking method of driver… judge the sight and living body of the driver, predict the different degree of deities of the driver (deities of driver is understood as amount/degree of fatigue/tiredness, a not fatigue driver would be understood as positive, while determining fatigued driver would be negative)]:
wherein the tiredness of the driver is determined based on line of sight orientation and eye state [pg. 3;¶8 3) using the stable view line method to accurately locate the characteristic point in the image, self-adaptively establishing head 3 D model, determining the driver behaviour, head orientation, line of sight orientation, eye state and outputting the result]; and
activating a steering and lane control assist system in the automated motor vehicle based on the tiredness of the driver to control movement of the automated motor vehicle in a lane and facilitate automated lane changing [pg.4 ¶4 the danger level is divided into 5 levels of allowing the driver different from the hand-off time… will exit the automatic driving function (hand-off time is understood to at least include steering and lane control assist)].
Lui discloses line of sight and eye state of the driver but is silent to the specifics i.e. being based on a blink analysis including an eyelid closure time and a blink rate.
Bogner discloses wherein the tiredness(alertness) of the driver is determined based on a blink analysis including an eyelid closure time and a blink rate [¶ 9 blink time of driver exceeds the period, ¶ 10 The eyelid closing time can thus denote the period that is required for changing the state of the eyelid(monitoring changing state of the eyelid is understood as a type of blink rate), ¶ 11 continuous or interval time determinations… or in a manner averaged over a plurality of monitoring processes, whether the degree of attentiveness is still adequate (averaging over multiple processes would also quantify a type of blink rate), ¶ 43 it would alternatively or additionally also be possible for the blink time to denote an eyelid closing time, i.e. a period of time that the eyelid requires for changing between the open and closed states (this would be a rate which a blink happens), Fig. 3 (Eyelid closed time), Fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the invention was made to modify Lui with the teachings of Bogner for purposes of making determinations about a monitored driver by collecting data on driver cues for making decisions on the status of driver regarding degrees of capabilities by using observable driver factors for improving safety decisions generated by automated controls.
As per claim 12 Lui discloses further wherein the alertness level of the driver is determined based on visual, auditive, or haptic sensor data [pg.3 ¶2 a driver fatigue and non-driving behavior monitoring (as in monitoring the driver themselves) method based on sight tracking technology, pg.3 ¶5 collecting the vehicle inner and outer and driver face data by the camera].
As per claim 18 Lui discloses further wherein the behavior of the driver is determined at discrete times or continuously [pg.3 ¶ 1 (description of the background of the invention) detecting the driver from the time of the steering wheel and comparing with the time threshold value, ¶3 further applied to the driver of the automatic driving for judging the hand-off time, ¶10 further determining the time of allowing the driver to remove the hand, pg.4 ¶1 the algorithm can match the scene real-time].
As per claim 19 Lui discloses further wherein a high alertness level of the driver leads to a longer hands-off time than a low alertness level of the driver [pg.4 ¶4 the danger level is divided into 5 levels of allowing the driver different from the hand-off time;…].
Additional Art to Consider/teaching
Application CN 104477113 A, titled, Control Method, System And Vehicle, also discloses a driver attentiveness determination system, based on driver behavior, that is used as a qualifier for automated vehicle driving systems. This is similar to the Applicant’s invention of monitoring a driver for determining driver effectiveness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662