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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Request for Continued Examination and Amendments/Arguments filed on 5/19/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim objection of the most recent Office action is removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Prior art rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 of the most recent Office action are removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 15 recite(s) the limitation "the countermeasure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Dependent claims inherit rejections of the claims they depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are pending and allowed.
Claim(s) 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no prior art alone or in combination that discloses or teaches all the limitations of Applicant's claimed invention, including, and in combination with other recited limitations,
linking the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of the electronic computing device; and
creating the individual user profile by adapting the initial user profile based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling linked to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of the electronic computing device (claim(s) 1),
link the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle; and
adapt the initial user profile based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling linked to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle to create an individual user profile (claim(s) 9),
links the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle;
and adapts the initial user profile based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling linked to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle to create the individual user profile (claim(s) 10).
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Regarding claim 1, Frye (US 20180065642 A1) teaches A method for creating an individual user profile in an event of an occurrence of motion sickness of a user of a motor vehicle by way of a support system of the motor vehicle, the method comprising:
providing an initial user profile for the user of the motor vehicle by way of an electronic computing device of the support system (“Control system 16 associates the selected vehicle system 78, the occupant health data, and the occupant state data in a unique occupant data profile to learn occupant preferences and effective recommendations.”, [0037], “The unique occupant data profile is specific to one occupant and more information is added to unique occupant data profile over time to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the recommendations made by control system 16.”, [0064]);
capturing at least one characteristic (“occupant health data and occupant state”, [0043]) that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of a capture device (“sensor system 14”, Fig. 2) of the support system (“Sensor system 14 measures occupant physiology, occupant behavior”, [0041], “Sensor system 14 includes the plurality of sensors as shown in FIGS. 3-10. Measurements from sensor system 14 are used to determine occupant health data and occupant state data as suggested in FIG. 3.”, [0043], “Sensor system 14 includes optical camera system 2”, [0044], “Optical camera system 26 is configured to change a field of view to detect occupant 13 when occupant 13 is in a plurality of positions as suggested in FIGS. 6 and 7.”, [0048]);
generating a user query (“Control system 16 analyzes the occupant health data and occupant state data and determines recommendations for improving the wellness and/or comfort of occupant 13 as suggested in FIG. 11B.”, [0035], “Based on at least one of the occupant health data and the occupant state data, control system 16 identifies one or more of a plurality of vehicle systems 78 suitable to change at least one physiological characteristic or behavioral characteristic of occupant 13.”, [0036], Fig. 11B);
outputting the user query (see “visual display 90” of Fig. 11B);
capturing an input of the user of the motor vehicle (see “YES” and “NO” in Fig. 11B);
linking the input of the user of the motor vehicle (“Control system 16 is configured to associate activation of vehicle system 78 with the occupant health data and the occupant state data in a unique occupant data profile. The unique occupant data profile is specific to one occupant and more information is added to unique occupant data profile over time to increase the accuracy and effectiveness of the recommendations made by control system 16.”, [0064]); and
creating the individual user profile by adapting the initial user profile based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle (see “information is added to unique occupant data profile over time”, [0064] citation above, see also “The occupant health data, occupant state data, and learned occupant behaviors are associated in a unique occupant data profile associated with a single occupant. The control system adds information and trends to the unique occupant data profile over time to improve its occupant comfort and wellness recommendations.”, [0005]).
Frye teaches a user query asking a user to accept or decline a recommendation (Fig. 11B) based on a determination that the recommendation may improve the user’s comfort or stress [0003-0005].
Frye does not teach a user query asking how the user is feeling.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo (US 20200210736 A1) teaches A method
providing an initial user profile for the user of the motor vehicle by way of an electronic computing device (“information processing apparatus 200”, Fig. 3) of the support system (“the information processing apparatus 200 pre-stores an image of the occupant with a neutral facial expression. The neutral facial expression may be a “plain” facial expression.”, [0022]);
capturing at least one characteristic (“occupant health data and occupant state”, [0043]) that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of a capture device (“cameras 110”, Fig. 1) of the support system (“Sensor system 14 measures occupant physiology, occupant behavior”, [0041], “Sensor system 14 includes the plurality of sensors as shown in FIGS. 3-10. Measurements from sensor system 14 are used to determine occupant health data and occupant state data as suggested in FIG. 3.”, [0043], “Sensor system 14 includes optical camera system 2”, [0044], “The image-capturing unit may have a plurality of cameras 110. The information processing apparatus 200 may acquire, from the plurality of cameras 110, an image of the driver 52 and an image of the passenger 54 that are captured by respective ones of the plurality of cameras 110.”, [0021], “the information processing apparatus 200 pre-stores association data in which the difference from the neutral facial expression is associated with a pattern of human emotions. For example, in the association data, a facial expression with lifted mouth corners relative to the neutral facial expression is associated with a positive emotion, and a facial expression with lowered mouth corners relative to the neutral facial expression is associated with a negative emotion. The information processing apparatus 200 identifies one of the pattern of emotions using the image of the occupant captured by the camera 110, the image with the neutral facial expression and the association data, to provide an estimation result of the emotion of the occupant.”, [0025]);
generating a user query asking how the user is feeling by way of the electronic computing device (“The request process executing unit 244 executes a request process to request the input of the emotion of the occupant.”, [0078]);
outputting the user query asking how the user is feeling at an output device of the support system (“the request process executing unit 244 displays an input screen to input the emotion of the occupant on the display 130, as a request process. The input emotion acquiring unit 246 acquires the emotion input in the input screen displayed on the display 130.”, [0080]);
capturing an input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling in response to the user query regarding how the user is feeling by way of an input device of the support system (“The input emotion acquiring unit 246 acquires the emotion of the occupant input in response to the request process performed by the request process executing unit 244.”, [0078]);
Matsuo teaches a user query asking how the user is feeling [0078-0080].
Matsuo does not explicitly teach linking the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle…or
creating the individual user profile…based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling…
Thus, there is not prior art, alone or in combination, which discloses
linking the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of the electronic computing device; and
creating the individual user profile by adapting the initial user profile based on the input of the user of the motor vehicle asking how the user is feeling linked to the at least one characteristic that currently characterizes the user of the motor vehicle by way of the electronic computing device.
Claim 9 recite(s) similar limitation(s) to that of claim(s) 1 and is/are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above. Additional limitations present in the claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 9, Frye teaches (“control system 16”, Fig. 2]):
Frye does not teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program with program code.
However, Wan (US 20190022347 A1teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program with program code that causes an electronic computing device to (“The memory device 116 may be any type of suitable memory. For example, the memory device 116 may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example…The memory device 116 may be implemented using any of a number of known memory devices such as PROMs (programmable read-only memory), EPROMs (electrically PROM), EEPROMs (electrically erasable PROM), flash memory, or any other electric, magnetic, optical, or combination memory devices capable of storing data, some of which represent executable instructions, used by the controller 28.”, [0043]):
Both Frye and Wan teach an electronic computing device configured to adapt an initial user profile based on a user of a vehicle’s input. Wan further teaches the electronic computing device comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program with program code that causes the electronic computing device to adapt the initial user profile. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frye with the teachings of Wan such that the electronic computing device of Frye includes these well-known computing components, as suggested by Wan, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would achieve the predictable result of operating the computing device to perform the process of adapting the initial user profile. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim 10 recite(s) similar limitation(s) to that of claim(s) 1 and is/are allowable for the same reasons as discussed above. Additional limitations present in the claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 10, Frye teaches A support system that creates an individual user profile in an event of an occurrence of motion sickness of a user of a motor vehicle, the support system comprising:
a capture device (“sensor system 14”, Fig. 2, “Sensor system 14 includes the plurality of sensors as shown in FIGS. 3-10.”, [0043], “Sensor system 14 includes optical camera system 2”, [0044]);
an output device (“display 90”, Fig. 11B);
an input device (“display 90”, Fig. 11B); and
an electronic computing device that (“control system 16”, Fig. 2]), in operation:
Frye does not teach an output device and an input device.
However, Wan teaches
an output device (“display device”, [0040, 0062], “A display device is any output device of the motion sickness mitigation system 22 that presents information to an occupant in visual, audible, tactile/haptic, or other form.”, [0062]);
an input device (“interface 98”, [0040, 0060], “The inputs may be received as alphanumeric entries, or a voice response system may be used. In a number of examples, the interface 98 may comprise one or more sensors associated with user interfaces such as vehicle touch screens, rotary knobs, buttons, and/or other types of user interfaces within the vehicle 20 for receiving inputs from an occupant.”, [0040]).
Both Frye and Wan teach a support system configured to adapt an initial user profile based on a user of a vehicle’s input. Wan further teaches the user input is received through an input device and user query prompting the user input is present through an output device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Frye such that output device and the input device of Frye are two separate components, as suggested by Wan, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to distinctly alert the user of the query, as suggested by Wan [0062] and to provide numerous options for receiving the user input, as suggested by Wan [0040].
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM- 6PM, Central Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights