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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained for the reasons set forth below:
Applicant argues that Sanma is an improper primary reference because it is not concerned with controlling movement of the vehicle. This argument is not persuasive. A primary reference need not disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, nor must it be directed to the same end use. See MPEP §2141; In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is properly relied upon if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Applicant.
Sanma is directed to a driver-adaptive vehicular system that modifies system behavior based on driver age and vehicle information. Sanma discloses estimating driver age using facial image processing (paras [0035]–[0037]), acquiring vehicle information and applying conditional logic (paras [0007], [0031], [0032]), and selecting operational parameters based on driver age thresholds (paras [0049], [0050]; Figs. 8A, 8B). The problem addressed by Applicant—adapting vehicle behavior based on driver age to improve safety—is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Sanma. Accordingly, Sanma is a proper primary reference.
Applicant further argues that Sanma is limited to tactile notification and therefore cannot support vehicle control. This argument is not persuasive. Sanma discloses that its tactile notification device is integrated within an in-vehicle control network, including communication with accelerator, brake, and steering sensors as well as drive assist systems (para [0032]). Sanma further discloses a drive assist processing unit (para [0037]) and the use of driver-related information when drive assist is necessary (Fig. 7). Thus, Sanma is part of a vehicle control ecosystem capable of influencing driving behavior. The fact that Sanma’s exemplary output is tactile notification does not preclude obvious modification of the system output to vehicle motion control when combined with known vehicle control techniques.
Applicant acknowledges that Zhu teaches calculating a distance between the vehicle and a moving object and determining whether the distance is below a predetermined threshold. Zhu explicitly discloses detecting objects ahead of the vehicle using front-facing cameras (paras [0032], [0037]), calculating distance to moving objects via image-based techniques (paras [0037], [0042]), and determining whether objects are within a proximity requiring intervention (para [0043]). Zhu therefore teaches the object-proximity evaluation recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that neither Zhu nor Huribu teaches vehicle control based on driver age. This argument is not persuasive. Sanma teaches estimating and categorizing driver age and modifying system behavior based on driver age (paras [0035]–[0037], [0049], [0050]). Huribu teaches using driver attributes, including age, to set or modify an upper limit travel speed and to restrict vehicle speed or the reflection of accelerator operation depending on driving conditions (col. 8; cols. 6–9). Accordingly, driver-age-based vehicle control is taught by Huribu, while driver age estimation and categorization is taught by Sanma.
Applicant further contends that the Examiner improperly parsed the claim and failed to show a reference teaching the combined condition of driver age and object proximity. This argument misstates the law. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 does not require that a single reference disclose the identical combined conditional logic verbatim. See MPEP §2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Sanma teaches driver-age-based conditional decision-making, Zhu teaches object-distance-based hazard determination, and Huribu teaches alternative vehicle control actions, including speed limitation and suppression of accelerator input, based on driver attributes and driving conditions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to logically combine known safety conditions—driver vulnerability and environmental hazard—before invoking known vehicle control responses. Such multi-factor gating logic yields predictable results and requires no more than ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant asserts that the Examiner’s rationale is a generalized safety goal and constitutes hindsight reconstruction. This argument is not persuasive. The motivation to combine is explicitly supported by the references. Sanma teaches improving safety and suitability for drivers with reduced perception (para [0006]). Zhu teaches reducing accidents by reacting to object proximity (para [0017]). Huribu teaches preventing unsafe driving by limiting vehicle speed or acceleration based on driver and vehicle state (cols. 6–8). The combination is driven by articulated design incentives and known safety considerations recognized in KSR, not by hindsight.
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner finds that the combination of Sanma, Zhu, and Huribu teaches or renders obvious all limitations of Claims 1–6. Claims 2–4 further limit the control logic but are taught or rendered obvious by Huribu’s disclosure of speed thresholds, dynamic adjustment, and variable degrees of acceleration suppression. Claims 5 and 6 merely recite the same subject matter in computer-readable medium and method form and are not patentably distinct.
Remakrs
Examiner would like to draw applicant’s attention to the claim limitations “ estimate an age of a driver” is a nonfunctional descriptive language and ambiguous. Estimate has no boundary, thus it’s not definitive language.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanama (US 20150198448) , view of Zhu (US 2012/0083960 , and further in view of Huribu (US 11,685,407).
Claims 1 and 6, Sanama teaches a processor configured to estimate an age of a driver based on a facial image representing a face of the driver of a vehicle. See Sanama, para [0068], “The age and gender of the driver may be acquired based on an image taken by an in-vehicle camera, or may be directly inputted by the driver.”
Zhu teaches calculating a distance between the vehicle and a moving object detected based on a front image representing a state ahead of the vehicle. See Zhu, para [0017], “The system uses one or more sensors to detect the presence of objects in the vehicle’s path and to determine their distance from the host vehicle.”
Zhu further teaches determining whether the distance between the vehicle and the moving object is below a predetermined reference distance and initiating an intervention when the distance is less than a threshold value. See Zhu, para [0071],: “If the distance to the detected object is less than a threshold value, the controller initiates an intervention.”
Huribu teaches deciding to restrict the speed of the vehicle to below a first reference speed when it is determined that the driver is an elderly person. See Huribu, Col 8, lines 40-45 “If the driver is an elderly person…the upper limit travel speed is reduced.”
Zhu also teaches restricting a reflection of accelerating operation by the driver for acceleration of the vehicle when an obstacle is close. See Zhu, para (0027-0030), can autonomously be controlled;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the age estimation of Sanama with the distance-based hazard detection of Zhu and the age-based speed limiting of Huribu, and to apply either a speed limit or acceleration reduction only when both an elderly driver and a close obstacle are present. The motivation to combine is found in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), as the combination is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to improve safety for a known higher-risk driver population (elderly drivers) under known hazardous conditions (close object proximity).
Claim 2, Zhu teaches determining whether the speed of the vehicle is above a predetermined second reference speed (para [0043) and restricting acceleration when above the second reference speed and a hazard is detected (para [0045].
Huribu teaches restricting speed to a maximum allowable value for an elderly driver (col 8, lines 40-45)
It would have been obvious to incorporate the second reference speed logic from Zhu into the combined system of claim 1, because varying intervention type based on speed is a well-known technique in vehicle control systems to match the severity of control intervention to the severity of the operating condition.
Claim 3, Zhu, para [0044], , teaches adjusting threshold speeds in accordance with current vehicle speed. It would have been obvious to apply this known adaptive-threshold approach to the second reference speed in the combined system, because doing so predictably optimizes intervention timing and comfort (see MPEP §2143, “combination of known elements with predictable results”).
Claim 4, Zhu, para [0045], , teaches determining the amount of torque reduction based on current vehicle speed. It would have been obvious to vary the degree of acceleration restriction in the combined system according to speed for the same reason—predictable improvement in control smoothness—consistent with KSR’s rationale that a person of ordinary skill will adapt known control parameters to optimize performance.
Claim 5, Sanama, para [0075], teaches implementing the in-vehicle camera age-acquisition and control logic via software stored in a control device memory. Zhu, para [0040], , teaches object detection and distance measurement via software. It would have been obvious to store the combined logic of claims 1–4 in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, because each reference stores its own control algorithms in memory for processor execution, and combining them is a predictable integration of compatible software functions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657