DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed September 11, 2025. Claims 2, 5, 11, 15 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 21-25 have been newly added. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20-25 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
All previous claim objections have been overcome by Applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mena Benito et al. (Mena Benito; US Pub No. 2019/0382025 A1) in view of Vijaya Kumar et al. (Vijaya Kumar; US Pub No. 2017/0355377 A1).
As per claim 1, Mena Benito teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating notification to a driver in response to an identification of anomalous driving data (paragraph [0020])…and
providing the wellness advisory notification to the driver (paragraph [0064]).
Mena Benito does not expressly teach relative to one or more baseline driving characteristics and anomalous contextual data relative to one or more baseline contextual characteristics, wherein the anomalous contextual data and the baseline contextual characteristics are associated with non-driving behaviors during an activity of the driver occurring outside of a vehicle.
Vijaya Kumar teaches relative to one or more baseline driving characteristics and anomalous contextual data relative to one or more baseline contextual characteristics (paragraphs [0148] & [0149]), wherein the anomalous contextual data and the baseline contextual characteristics are associated with non-driving behaviors during an activity of the driver occurring outside of a vehicle (paragraphs [0148] & [0149]: quality of sleep the night before).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement associating a driving performance with previously observed driver non-driving behaviors as taught by Vijaya Kumar, since Vijaya Kuma states in paragraph [0149] that such a modification would result in identifying a driver’s fitness to operate a vehicle.
As per claim 3, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the anomalous contextual data is associated with a physiological state of the driver, or a health and wellness state of the driver (Mena Benito, paragraph [0008]; Vijaya Kumar, paragraph [0149]).
As per claim 4, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the anomalous contextual data comprises contextual parameters that an operating range, the operating range associated with contextual parameters (Mena Benito, paragraphs [0011], [0041]).
As per claim 6, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim [[5]] 1, wherein the anomalous driving data corresponds to a a driver behavior (Mena Benito, paragraph [0041], lines 48-58).
As per claim 7, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the identification of the anomalous driving data is based on a comparison with historical data associated with an onset of a disease (Mena Benito, paragraph [0011]).
As per claim 8, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the identification of the anomalous driving data falling outside of driving envelope that defines the one or more baseline driving characteristics (Mena Benito, paragraph [0041], lines 48-58; paragraph [0043], lines 1-5).
As per claim 9, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the anomalous contextual data is based on a of the driver (Mena Benito, paragraph [0041]).
As per claim 10, (see rejection of claim 1 above) system, comprising:
one or more processors (Mena Benito, paragraph [0020], line 16); and
[[a]] memory storing instructions that when executed, cause at least one of the one or more processors to (Mena Benito, paragraph [0038], lines 1-2):
generate notification to a driver in response to an identification of anomalous driving data relative to one or more baseline driving characteristics and anomalous contextual data relative to one or more baseline contextual characteristics, wherein the anomalous contextual data and the baseline contextual characteristics are associated with non-driving behaviors during an activity of the driver occurring outside of a vehicle; and
provide the wellness advisory notification to the driver .
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the system of claim 10, wherein the anomalous contextual data is associated with a physiological state of the driver, or a health and wellness state of the driver.
As per claim 13, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the anomalous contextual data (Mena Benito, paragraph [0026]).
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the system of claim 10, wherein the anomalous contextual data comprises contextual parameters that an operating range, the operating range associated with contextual parameters
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the system of claim [[15]]10, wherein the anomalous driving data corresponds to a a driver behavior.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 7 above) the system of claim 16, wherein the identification of the anomalous driving data is based on a comparison with historical data associated with an onset of a disease
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 8 above) the system of claim 17, wherein the identification of the anomalous driving data falling outside of a driving envelope that defines the baseline driving characteristics
As per claim 20, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the system of claim [[1]] 10, wherein providing the wellness advisory notification is in response to an output by identifying that the wellness advisory notification is to be provided (Mena Benito, paragraph [0011]).
As per claim 21, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the anomalous driving data identifies an actuation maneuver executed by the driver that historically is associated with an anomalous medical condition of the driver, wherein when the actuation maneuver is executed by a different driver, the actuation maneuver is historically associated with a normal or conforming medical condition of the different driver (Vijaya Kumar, paragraphs [0148] & [0149]: different driver profiles with fitness-to-drive scores and determinations, health determinations and associated driving behaviors; Mena Benito, paragraph [0066], lines 1-33).
As per claim 22, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the actuation maneuver comprises repeated braking (Vijaya Kumar, paragraph [0149], lines 14-15).
As per claim 23, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the wellness advisory notification comprises a predicted anomalous medical condition of the driver and a predicted severity of the predicted anomalous medical condition, wherein the predicted anomalous medical condition and the predicted severity are based on historical medical data of the driver (Mena Benito, paragraph [0041], lines 1-7).
As per claim 24, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the anomalous contextual data and the baseline contextual characteristics are associated with an exercise or sleeping characteristic of the driver (Vijaya Kumar, paragraph [0149], lines 3-5).
As per claim 25, Mena Benito in view of Vijaya Kumar further teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more baseline driving characteristics and the one or more baseline contextual characteristics are based on one or more other driving characteristics and one or more other contextual characteristics associated with one or more other drivers obtained within a temporal range and a spatial range relative to the anomalous driving data and the anomalous contextual data (Vijaya Kumar, paragraph [0146], lines 32-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685