DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. Claims 1, 3 and 6 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 04/16/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-3 and 6 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Note
6. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and claim 6 does not overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action. The amendments of executing an alert via a notification device in which recites further extra-solution activity. Hence, the 101 rejection is not withdrawn. Examiner previously recommended language from Claim 3, such as the braking device or steering device being activated as this signifies a controlling element and would overcome the 101.
8. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that limitations in Claim 1 and 6 regarding the “determine whether or not the driver views the object on a basis of the direction of the line of sight of the driver and on a basis of whether the length between pupils of the driver, is recognized, is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold, or less than the predetermined threshold” are not taught. Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0061] in Kinoshita where it states the distance from the pupils 12c and 12d of the driver are taken into consideration to determine if a pedestrian outside the vehicle is in the drivers view. The pupil interval is taken as D, and the width of the pedestrian is taken as A, and the maximum of the width is what is being used as a mean value. A mean value is being adopted because of the vehicle type or adjustment due to the drivers seat. This indicates that Chau in view of Kinoshita does teach the capability of the amended claim.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system.
Claim 6 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 6 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below - bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The claim limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are underlined.
Claim 1 recites,
An operation assistance system comprising a processor that is configured to:
recognize an object existing around a movable body; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally recognize an object existing around a movable body. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
acquire an image of a driver in the movable body;
recognize a direction of a line of sight of the driver on a basis of the image; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine a line of sight of a driver on the basis of an image. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
recognize a length between right and left pupils of the driver on a basis of the image;
determine whether or not the driver views the object on a basis of the direction of the line of sight of the driver and on a basis of whether the length between pupils of the driver, recognized, is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold, or less than the predetermined threshold; (A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally determine if a driver is viewing an object based on the direction of light of sight and the data of the length of pupils of the driver. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.)
and execute drive assistance processing for assisting driving of the movable body in a case where it is determined that the driver does not view the object,
wherein the processor executes alert processing of activating a notification device mounted on the movable body as the drive assistance processing.
Claim 6 recites similar language and has the same analysis as claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II 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 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. 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 present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites,
An operation assistance system comprising a processor that is configured to:
recognize an object existing around a movable body;
acquire an image of a driver in the movable body; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
recognize a direction of a line of sight of the driver on a basis of the image;
recognize a length between right and left pupils of the driver on a basis of the image; (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Instantly this appears to be mere data gathering. (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).)
determine whether or not the driver views the object on a basis of the direction of the line of sight of the driver and on a basis of whether the length between pupils of the driver, recognized, is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold, or less than the predetermined threshold;
and execute drive assistance processing for assisting driving of the movable body in a case where it is determined that the driver does not view the object,
wherein the processor executes alert processing of activating a notification device mounted on the movable body as the drive assistance processing. (This is recited such that the Applicant is merely adding extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Based off the specification, this limitation could be directed to a controlling aspect of the vehicle or emitting a warning to a driver. If applicant amends a controlling aspect, the 101 would be overcome. However, if a warning is emitted, then this would merely showcase extra-solution activity.)
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1, 10 and 15 do 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element discussed above, appears to be mere data gathering and transmitting of information which can be analyzed by an abstract mental process. And as discussed above, the additional limitations which are underlined above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3 recite further limitations that cause claim’s 1 and 6 to be patent eligible. Claims 2 recite further recite extra-solution activity. Showcasing a controlling element for the vehicle and would overcome the 101 rejections for Claims 1 and 6.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
11. Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau (US 20140070934 A1) in view of Kinoshita (US 20100090501).
Regarding Claim 1, Chau discloses An operation assistance system comprising a processor that is configured to: (Chau, see at least Abstract)
recognize an object existing around a movable body; (Chau, see at least [0013-0015] image sensor or camera that tracks visual images in front of the vehicle to detect objects.)
acquire an image of a driver in the movable body; (Chau, see at least [0014] image sensor or camera that tracks visual images of the driver of the vehicle.)
recognize a direction of a line of sight of the driver on a basis of the image; (Chau, see at least [0019-0022] wherein the sensor data of the image of the driver (head and face) is monitored to determine a gaze (eye gaze and/or head direction) of the driver to determine if the drivers gaze coordinates with the object)
execute drive assistance processing for assisting driving of the movable body in a case where it is determined that the driver does not view the object, (Chau, see at least [0017] wherein the control module 18 coordinates with collision avoidance systems 28 (e.g., braking systems) to avoid collision with the object when the driver has not detected the object.)
wherein the processor executes alert processing of activating a notification device mounted on the movable body as the drive assistance processing. (Chau, see at least [0017] “warning systems 26 (e.g., audible warning systems, haptic warning systems, etc.) to further alert the driver of the object when the driver has not detected the object.”)
Chau does not explicitly disclose recognize a length between right and left pupils of the driver on a basis of the image;
determine whether or not the driver views the object on a basis of the direction of the line of sight of the driver and on a basis of whether the length between pupils of the driver, recognized, is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold, or less than the predetermined threshold;
However, Kinoshita discloses recognize a length between right and left pupils of the driver on a basis of the image; (Kinoshita, see at least Fig. 9 and [0087] wherein the interval length between a drivers pupil is detected)
determine whether or not the driver views the object on a basis of the direction of the line of sight of the driver and on a basis of whether the length between pupils of the driver, recognized, is more than or equal to a predetermined threshold, or less than the predetermined threshold; (Kinoshita, see at least [0065] wherein shows how the [0123] wherein the length between a drivers pupil is detected and compared to predetermined median values to determine the driver’s line of sight. ** predetermined median values are interpreted as a threshold since a comparison is being done.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in modified Chau with the teachings of Kinoshita to include the technique of determining the length between a driver right and left pupil to more accurately determine a driver’s line of sight in which can be used to determine if a driver views an object within a vehicles environment. This would further improve a drive assistance system to assisting a driver when it’s determined that a driver does not view the object.
Regarding Claim 3, Chau in view of Kinoshita discloses The operation assistance system according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
Chau further discloses wherein the drive assistance control section executes contact avoidance processing of activating a braking device or a steering device mounted on the movable body in order to avoid contact between the movable body and the object as the drive assistance processing. (Chau, see at least [0017] “control module 18 coordinates with collision avoidance systems 28 (e.g., braking systems) to avoid collision with the object when the driver has not detected the object.”)
As per claim 6, the claim is directed towards an operation assistance method that recites similar limitations performed by the operation assistance system of claim 1. The cited portions of Chau and Kinoshita used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160049076– Traffic sign warnings are provided to a driver by optically scanning an area in front of the moving vehicle to obtain an image of said area in front of the moving vehicle. Road signs are recognized and their importance categorized. A driver's eyes are continuously scanned to determine whether the driver's eyes' ever focus on, or are directed to a detected and recognized road sign. Multiple different visual and/or audible warnings or alarms are generated based on the nature of a road sign, its proximity to the moving vehicle, and the driver's determined awareness of the road sign.
US 20210146785 – Driving assistance method for a driver of a motor vehicle, comprising a plurality of successive images of a road scene in front of said motor vehicle and communicating (25) said messages to the driver.
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 NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights