DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 11/25/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11-13 have been amended, claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled, and claims 14-16 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-16 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and considered moot.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, Applicant asserts “Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite ‘detect a sudden operation…’ and ‘reduce the threshold value…’… as such, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 12-13 are integrated into a practical application. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of “detect a sudden operation” fails to overcome the rejection under 35 USC §101 as the limitation is considered mere data gathering which has been ruled by the Courts as insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation “reduce the threshold value…” is still considered an abstract idea which can be performed in the mind. For example, after a threshold is met once, One of ordinary skill in the art could determine that the threshold could be lowered for the next instance of comparison. No action or control is being issued based on the reduced threshold or detected operation. Therefore, the amended limitations still fail to overcome rejection under 35 USC §101 and the rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, the arguments are considered moot because they are directed toward amendments that have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, applicant has amended the claims to overcome some of the rejections. However, some rejections are maintained along with new rejections under 35 USC §112 as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §101 are maintained as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
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 2, 7, and 14-16 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the frequency" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this frequency is a new frequency or refers to the “first frequency” of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, “an expression of surprise” in line 35 renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this instance of “an expression of surprise” is a new instance or refers to the expression of surprise recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16, the limitation “wherein the processor is further configured to increase a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear what the frequency is being weighed against, what the weight is, and what an increase in weight would do. The limitation will be interpreted such that the threshold is met more easily to maintain consistency with the other independent claims.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a device that comprises a processor, claim 12 is directed to a method and recites at least one step, and claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium with a computer program to cause a computer to execute a process. Therefore, claims 1-13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process and apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
A driver monitoring device comprising a processor configured to:
judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver;
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise;
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver; and
perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the first frequency is greater than or equal to a threshold value
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, a passenger of a vehicle would be able to determine a driver is surprised and determine the driver has expressed surprise a couple times in a short time span. Based on this determination, the passenger could ask the driver if the passenger should drive or if the driver would like to take a break. Furthermore, if an event requiring intervention is detected, the “threshold” required can be adjusted such that the “threshold” is more easily met for future instances.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A driver monitoring device comprising a processor configured to:
judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver;
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise;
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver; and
perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the first frequency is greater than or equal to a threshold value
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected.
The recitation of “processor,” “a vehicle,” and “imaging device” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. The additional limitations of “image generate by an imaging device” and “detect a sudden operation…” fall under “mere data gathering” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states insignificant extra-solution activity fails to integrate a judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Therefore, the additional elements and limitations merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment and insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 12 and 14-15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding the limitation “increase a weight…” is considered a mathematical relationship.
Specifically regarding claims 13 and 16, the additional limitations “non-transitory recording medium,” “computer program,” and “computer” are also recited at a high level of generality and also fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “set the threshold value based on past data of the frequency” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, the passenger may have ridden with the driver in a previous trip and knows the driver does not easily show surprise, therefore, the threshold for number of surprise events may be low. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 4 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “detect a hazardous driving scene” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the Courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 5 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. No other technology or action has been recited in the claim to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 7, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “calculate a second frequency…” and “perform another processing” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, at a second time, the number of times the driver is surprised can be counted again and the passenger can determine to continuously yell at the driver to keep the driver awake as opposed to asking the driver if the driver would like assistance. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 8, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “issue a warning to the driver” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, the passenger can let the driver know they need to pull over or wake up. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 8 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 9, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “issue a warning to a person other than the driver” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, the passenger can let other passengers know to fasten their seatbelts. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 10 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 1 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “ease a condition for activation” is considered insignificant post-solution activity. The limitation does not actuate a driver assistance function but merely changes a condition for the activation and does not positively recite structure or technology to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0073478 A1; hereinafter An) in view of Goto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0309232 A1) and further in view of Goto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0307611 A1; hereinafter Goto 2) and Nagasawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0339495 A1).
Regarding claim 1, An discloses:
A driver monitoring device comprising a processor configured to (controller has at least one processor, see at least [0061]): judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]);
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103]); and
perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the frequency is greater than or equal to a threshold value (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079])
An does not explicitly disclose:
an expression of surprise
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Additionally, Goto2 teaches:
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver (a case where driver suddenly brakes, see at least [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to acquire how the occupant (driver or passenger) feels about manual operation” by gathering occupant emotion data in response to such operations (see [0051]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, and the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above and further discloses:
(controller may store user long-term information generated during a previous driving and consistently updated according to driving of the vehicle, see at least [0152])
An and Goto do not teach:
the processor is configured to set the threshold value based on past data of the frequency
However, Goto 2 teaches:
the processor is configured to set the threshold value based on past data of the frequency (set an interaction threshold based on information obtained from emotion acquisition, see at least [0056] and [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the interaction threshold taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to learn a distance at which each occupant does not feel fear” (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above and An further discloses:
a detection device for obtaining surrounding environment information (vehicle may include sensing devices such as proximity sensors to sense obstacles around vehicle and rain sensor, see at least [0052]), wherein the processor is configured to detect surrounding environment information of the vehicle (external information of the vehicle, see at least [0054]; generate situation information in a specific driving situation, see at least [0092]-[0094]).
However, An does not disclose:
detect a hazardous driving scene
However, Goto teaches:
the processor is configured to detect a hazardous driving scene as the event based on surrounding environment information of the vehicle (determine a risk situation such as a near-miss incident, see at least [0057]; driver’s risk situation recognition determining unit 81 determines risk situation if predetermined distance to object or other vehicle becomes less than predetermined distance, see at least [0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding the determination of risk situation taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above but An does not disclose:
the hazardous driving scene includes a scene in which a distance between the vehicle and a moving body around the vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined distance.
However, Goto teaches:
the hazardous driving scene includes a scene in which a distance between the vehicle and a moving body around the vehicle is less than or equal to a predetermined distance (determine a risk situation such as a near-miss incident, see at least [0057]; driver’s risk situation recognition determining unit 81 determines risk situation if predetermined distance to object or other vehicle becomes less than predetermined distance, see at least [0058])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding the determination of risk situation taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above and An further discloses:
the processor is configured to calculate a second frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (update situation information which is stored based on numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0136]) *Examiner sets forth this indicates a constant observation which could occur at a second time
An does not disclose:
perform at least one processing among constant warning, forced stop, request for aid, speed limit, and constant activation of the hazard lights as another processing with a higher strength of warning than the predetermined processing if the second frequency has reached a predetermined value
However, Goto 2 teaches:
perform at least one processing among constant warning, forced stop, request for aid, speed limit, and constant activation of the hazard lights as another processing with a higher strength of warning than the predetermined processing if the second frequency has reached a predetermined value (in a case where distance between vehicles is gradually becoming closer and collision will occur, appropriate interaction distance is determined so occupant will not feel fear or anxiety based on prior emotion information and change a deceleration start, see at least [0055]-[0056]) *Examiner sets forth deceleration indicates a limiting of speed
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the control change timing taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to learn a distance at which each occupant does not feel fear” (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above and An further discloses:
the processor is configured to issue a warning to the driver as the predetermined processing (to control the user's emotional state and reproduce an emotion release message and output a warning sound, see at least [0073])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above and An further discloses:
the processor is configured to ease a condition for activation of a driver assistance operation in a driver assistance function mounted in the vehicle as the predetermined processing (air conditioning may be provided to perform heating and cooling, see at least [0073]; feedback devices may include air conditioner to reduce the negative emotion, see at least [0113] and [0121])
Regarding claim 12, An discloses:
A driver monitoring method performed by a computer (controller has at least one processor, see at least [0061], comprising: judging an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]); and
calculating a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103]) and performing a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the frequency is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079])
An does not explicitly disclose:
an expression of surprise
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Additionally, Goto2 teaches:
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver (a case where driver suddenly brakes, see at least [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to acquire how the occupant (driver or passenger) feels about manual operation” by gathering occupant emotion data in response to such operations (see [0051]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, and the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Regarding claim 13, An discloses:
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the computer program causing a computer to (non-volatile memory, controller includes memory to store program and processor to execute the stored program, see at least [0060]-[0061]): judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]); and
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103])
perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the frequency is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079])
An does not explicitly disclose:
an expression of surprise
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Additionally, Goto2 teaches:
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver (a case where driver suddenly brakes, see at least [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to acquire how the occupant (driver or passenger) feels about manual operation” by gathering occupant emotion data in response to such operations (see [0051]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the threshold value if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, and the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Regarding claim 14, An discloses:
A driver monitoring device comprising a processor (controller has at least one processor, see at least [0061]) configured to: judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]),
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103]),
perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the first frequency is greater than or equal to a threshold value (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079]),
An does not explicitly disclose:
an expression of surprise
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver,
wherein the processor is further configured to increase a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Additionally, Goto2 teaches:
detect a sudden operation by the driver as an event based on information on operation of the vehicle by the driver (a case where driver suddenly brakes, see at least [0052])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to acquire how the occupant (driver or passenger) feels about manual operation” by gathering occupant emotion data in response to such operations (see [0051]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to increase a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, and the sudden braking taught by Goto 2 by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Goto and further in view of Nagasawa.
Regarding claim 15, An discloses:
A driver monitoring method performed by a computer (controller has at least one processor, see at least [0061]), comprising:
judging an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]),
calculating a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103]) and
performing a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the frequency is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079])
An does not explicitly disclose:
an expression of surprise
wherein a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise is increased if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise is increased if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Regarding claim 16, An discloses:
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the computer program causing a computer to (non-volatile memory, controller includes memory to store program and processor to execute the stored program, see at least [0060]-[0061]):
judge an expression of a driver of a vehicle from an image generated by an imaging device capturing a face of the driver (sensing unit 210 may sense and acquire user’s emotional state such as face analyzer to analyze user’s face state and eye tracker, see at least [0083]; biometric devices may include camera 36 to recognize user’s face or hand gesture, see at least [0081]); and
calculate a first frequency based on times at which the expression of the driver is judged as an expression (generate situation information representing numbers of expressions of respective emotional states, see at least [0102]-[0103]) and perform a predetermined processing for enhancing a safety of the driver when the frequency is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (control feedback devices to reduce negative emotion factor when the emotional state having number of expressions is equal to threshold value or more, see at least [0112]-[0121]; improvement while assuring safe driving, see t lest [0079])
An does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise is increased if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected.
However, Goto teaches:
it is judged the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise (driver’s emotion estimating unit 55 indicates fear or surprise, see at least [0057])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An by adding an emotion of surprise taught by Goto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for providing a system that “reduces accidents and improves a feeling of safety” (See [0003]).
Furthermore, Nagasawa teaches:
wherein a weight to the first frequency due to the weight being judged that the expression of the driver is an expression of surprise is increased if the expression of the driver is judged as an expression of surprise and the event is detected (determine whether an event has been sensed and the occupant state is an emotional state unsuitable for driving, if yes, proceed to step S230, see at least [0193]-[0194]; perform threshold reduction at step S230, see at least [0215])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An and an emotion of surprise taught by Goto by adding the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “allows for easier establishment of determination” meaning an earlier intervention (see [0215] and [0259]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Dozza (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0025969 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the processor is configured to issue a warning to a person other than the driver as the predetermined processing
However, Dozza teaches:
the processor is configured to issue a warning to a person other than the driver as the predetermined processing (if driver’s reaction is considered non-standard, warning the surrounding traffic, see at least [0086])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, the sudden braking taught by Goto 2, and the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa by adding the warning of surrounding traffic taught by Dozza with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “so that the drivers of these vehicles or road users etc. can prepare themselves to react to a possible hazardous future driving behavior from the ego vehicle 100 in order to increase traffic safety and efficiency” (see [0086]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Oba (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0188289 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of An, Goto, Goto 2, and Nagasawa teaches the elements above but does not teach:
adaptive cruise control
However, Oba teaches:
the processor is configured to set to a maximum value a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance when adaptive cruise control is actuated in the vehicle as the predetermined processing (when driver is not in normal alert state, changing the settings to make the inter-vehicle distance longer during auto cruise control (ACC), see at least [0570])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the emotion determination disclosed by An, an emotion of surprise taught by Goto, the sudden braking taught by Goto 2, and the reduced threshold taught by Nagasawa by adding the inter-vehicle distance in ACC taught by Oba with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to perform the control described below as a process for lowering a risk of delay in an accident avoidance behavior of the driver” (see [0567]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662