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 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. The 101, 112, and objections were overcome. The art rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that the newly amended portion of independent claims is not taught by the art. Examiner disagrees. This is the newly added limitation with citations: via one or more of visual, audible and haptic feedback to the driver [Scheggi: Fig. 5. Discloses explicitly various levels of haptic feedback] of the vehicle in response to the vehicle being operated in the non- compliant manner [Scheggi: unbuckled #200a, out of lane #200b, excessive speed #200c. Those are considered non-compliant ways to operate a vehicle] for a time duration exceeding a threshold [Patel: 0050 “whether a period of driving is uncomfortable (e.g., by having a high jerk or other acceleration-related characteristic)” period is a time duration that uncomfortable/non-compliant operation is done.].
Applicant’s arguments to claim 13 are moot having new grounds of rejection based on the previously presented prior art. Based on the arguments above necessitated by amendments.
The remaining claims are argued allowable based on dependency on the above argued claims as such the rejections maintained prevent allowance.
Conforms with 35 USC § 101
The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claim 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 11-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220135052 A1 hereinafter Patel in view of US 20240416924 A1, hereinafter Liu in view of 20200001895 A1 hereinafter Scheggi.
As to claim 1, Patel discloses a method comprising
determining that a driver of said vehicle exhibits a non-neutral sentiment [Patel: 0069 predetermined emotion is used in calculating a quotient displayed/warn ][Liu: 0264 “The emotion intelligent analysis and recognition device 212 herein is configured to perform intelligent analysis and recognition on the face expression dynamics collected by the face high-speed camera device 211, and determine a current driver real-time emotion status.”],
Patel discloses the hardware to monitor the environment and driver and makes a determination as to the safety of real time operation based on the inputs to disclose a value that may serve as a warning towards safety. However, the determination of how obtrusive to be with notifications to the driver is not done in Patel. However, Liu, also is in the same field of art and has various types of warnings that are various levels of obtrusiveness based on the driver emotion and the vehicle operation.
determining that a vehicle is being operated in a manner that fails to comply with a constraint imposed on motion of vehicles on a section of a road [Liu: 0049 “The first set of applications 410 may include various applications. For applications 410, forward-looking cameras (e.g., FFCs), in-cabin cameras (e.g., DFCs) and telematics data may be evaluated in combination to determine whether a stop sign or red light has been ignored.”]
based on having determined that said driver exhibits a non-neutral sentiment [Liu: 0019 “driver management control instructions based on an emotion recognition result and/or an abnormal behavior analysis result. . . and feeds back the instructions to the warning prompt unit or the vehicle control unit.”],
selecting a level of obtrusiveness for said warning message, and outputting said warning message at said level [Liu: 0048 type of event, 0019 “driver management control instructions based on an emotion recognition result and/or an abnormal behavior analysis result and/or a fatigue status determination result. . . and feeds back the instructions to the warning prompt unit or the vehicle control unit through the vehicle-mounted gateway unit, to send a sound and light warning or a voice prompt or control the vehicle ACC to turn on or turn off or control the vehicle to perform speed limitation, speed reduction, or emergency braking.” The type of warnings are determined and have various levels of obtrusiveness e.g., warning by taking control is more obtrusive than a visual warning or audio. May warn 0300-0304 various levels of warnings.].
Patel in view of Lui discloses determining user sentiment to determine warning and suggest non-compliant manners of operating a vehicle and various warning obtrusiveness (control, audio, visual) but not haptic. Scheggi discloses haptic and explicit non-compliant manners of operation with additional settings being contemplated (Fig. 5).
via one or more of visual, audible and haptic feedback to the driver [Scheggi: Fig. 5] of the vehicle in response to the vehicle being operated in the non- compliant manner [Scheggi: unbuckled #200a, out of lane #200b, excessive speed #200c] for a time duration exceeding a threshold [Patel: 0050 “whether a period of driving is uncomfortable (e.g., by having a high jerk or other acceleration-related characteristic)”].
As to claim 2, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses determines breaking driving constraints, but does not disclose speed being monitored explicitly based on the posted speed limit. However, Patel discloses wherein said constraint is a speed limit [Patel: 0027 “. while a driven vehicle's speed exceeds a posted speed limit;”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the constraints monitored by Liu to include speed limits as described in Patel as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of including more considered constraints for safety.
As to claim 3, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses wherein said level is selected based on an extent to which said non-neutral sentiment deviates from a neutral sentiment [Liu: 0276-0277 monitor emotional level and when exceeds a threshold results the vehicle intervenes with warnings/controls].
As to claim 4, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses wherein determining that a driver of said vehicle exhibits a non-neutral sentiment comprises making said determination based at least in part on a signal from a camera that is pointing at said driver [Liu: 0172, 0173 “by the body panorama video collection device, to determine whether the current driver real-time behavior status is abnormal.”].
As to claim 6, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising determining said constraint based at least in part on observations of signage by an external camera [Liu: 0049 “The first set of applications 410 may include various applications. For applications 410, forward-looking cameras (e.g., FFCs), in-cabin cameras (e.g., DFCs) and telematics data may be evaluated in combination to determine whether a stop sign or red light has been ignored.”].
As to claim 8, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses an apparatus comprising a warning system for a vehicle [Liu: Fig. 8], said warning system comprising an escalator and a level selector [Liu: #230 and 300 work to gather input, process, and output the type of warning 0300-0304], wherein said level selector receives a constraint signal, a motion signal, and a sentiment signal, wherein said constraint signal is indicative on a constraint on motion of a vehicle on a section of a road, wherein said motion signal is indicative of motion of said vehicle, wherein said sentiment signal is indicative of whether a driver of said vehicle has a non-neutral sentiment, wherein said level selector is configured to select a level of obtrusiveness of a warning signal based at least in part on said sentiment signal, and wherein said escalator receives said level from said level selectors and outputs a warning signal based on said level [Remainer of claim see claim 1 for citations].
As to claim 9, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising a camera, a GPS that maintains a library of constraints that are keyed to vehicle location and that provides a first constraint signal based on said vehicle’s location [Patel: 0047 “determinations of location and road type from a cloud-based database,”] [Liu: 0004 suggest that GPS is a requirement], [Patel: 0050], indicative of said vehicle’s speed to said level selector [Patel: 0050], and a sentiment analyzer that provides, to said level selector, a signal indicative whether said driver is in a neutral state or in a non-neutral state [Lui: #220], wherein said warning system further comprises a feature extractor that extracts constraint information from one or more images provided by said camera and a multiplexer [Lui: 0172, 0173 “by the body panorama video collection device, to determine whether the current driver real-time behavior status is abnormal.”] that receives a second constraint signal from said feature extractor and a first constraint signal from said GPS and that chooses which of said first and second constraint signals to provide to said level selector[Lui: 0300-0304 various levels of warnings.] For incorporating Patel into Liu see that section above for the pertinent limitations.
Scheggi discloses user preferences being incorporated in determine the type intensity of user warning [0045] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the control of warnings of Liu to use user preferences of Scheggi as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of reducing user annoyance.
As to claim 11, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising a sentiment analyzer and user preferences for enabling said sentiment analyzer to be selectively disabled by said driver [Liu: 0104 or independently chooses to enable or disable related monitoring client functions within the scope of user authority.].
As to claim 12, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising user preferences to enable said driver to selectively disable said warning system [Liu: 0104 or independently chooses to enable or disable related monitoring client functions within the scope of user authority.].
As to claim 13, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses user preferences that can set a warning [Scheggi: 0045, Fig. 5] but does not make that based on non-compliance time exceeds a threshold [Patel: 0050 “whether a period of driving is uncomfortable (e.g., by having a high jerk or other acceleration-related characteristic)”].
As to claim 14, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising an external camera, wherein said warning system comprises and a feature extractor that receives an image from said external camera and determines said constraint signal based on said image [Liu: 0049 “The first set of applications 410 may include various applications. For applications 410, forward-looking cameras (e.g., FFCs), in-cabin cameras (e.g., DFCs) and telematics data may be evaluated in combination to determine whether a stop sign or red light has been ignored.”].
As to claim 17, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses wherein said warning system further comprises a multiplexer that selects said constraint signal from among a plurality of sources of constraint signals. [Liu: May warn 0300-0304 various levels of warnings.].
As to claim 15, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses using a camera to gather constraint information but does not disclose using a mapped database. However, Patel discloses further comprising a GPS that maintains a library of constraints for specific locations, uses said vehicle’s location to choose a constraint from said library, and provides said constraint signal that communicates said constraint to said warning system [Patel: 0047 “determinations of location and road type from a cloud-based database,”]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the unput information source for constraints of Liu to include the cloud-based data on roads of Patel as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of including more considered constraints robustness in determining safety.
As to claim 16. Scheggi discloses, further comprising user preferences that control operation of said warning system. [Scheggi: 0045 user preferences being incorporated in determine the type intensity of user warning] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the control of warnings of Liu to use user preferences of Scheggi as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of reducing user annoyance.
As to claim 18, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses further comprising a sentiment analyzer that produces a signal that is indicative of an extent to which said driver has deviated from a neutral sentiment [Liu: 0062].
As to claim 19, Liu discloses wherein said level selector is further configured to select said level of obtrusiveness based on said constraint [Liu: May warn 0300-0304 various levels of warnings.].
As to claim 20, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses different levels of obtrusive responses based on how abnormal but does not explicitly tie that to patterns of compliance. Patel suggests wherein said level selector is further configured to select said level of obtrusiveness based on an observed pattern in said driver’s lack of compliance with said constraint, said pattern comprising two or more instances of lack of compliance with said constraint [Patel: 0035 the quotient is based on lack of compliance]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the determination on abnormality of Liu to be based on pattern as suggested in Patel as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of filtering false positives warning indications.
As to claim 21, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses different levels of obtrusive responses based on how abnormal but does not explicitly tie that to patterns of compliance. Patel suggests wherein said level selector is further configured to select said level of obtrusiveness based on an observed pattern in said driver’s lack of compliance with plural constraints, said pattern comprising two or more instances of lack of compliance with said plural constraints [Patel: 0035 the quotient is based on lack of compliance]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the determination on abnormality of Liu to be based on pattern as suggested in Patel as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of filtering false positives warning indications.
Claim 5, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi in view of US 20220355804 A1 hereinafter Huang.
As to claim 5, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses using a camera to gather sentiment but does not explicitly disclose using microphone. However, Huang discloses wherein determining that a driver of said vehicle exhibits a non-neutral sentiment comprises making said determination based at least in part on a signal from a microphone that is directed towards said driver [Huang: 0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sentiment input device of Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi to include a microphone of Huang as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having more inputs to make the data gathering and determination of sentiment more robust.
As to claim 7, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses using a camera to constraints but does not explicitly disclose using GPS (suggested in background). However, Huang discloses further comprising determining said constraint based at least in part on a GPS signal [Huang: 0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the constrain input device of Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi to include a GPS of Huang as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of including more considered constraints robustness in determining safety.
As to claim 10, Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi discloses using a camera to gather sentiment but does not explicitly disclose using microphone. However, Huang discloses further comprising a sentiment analyzer that produces said sentiment signal for said level selector, wherein said sentiment analyzer receives inputs from a camera that is positioned to acquire an image of said driver [Liu: 0172, 0173 “by the body panorama video collection device, to determine whether the current driver real-time behavior status is abnormal.”] and a microphone that is positioned to listen to said driver [Huang: 0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sentiment input device of Patel in view of Liu in view of Scheggi to include a microphone of Huang as it merely uses a known device in a known way with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of having more inputs to make the data gathering and determination of sentiment more robust.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
US 20220161815 A1 According to one embodiment, an apparatus includes an interface to receive sensor data from a plurality of sensors of an autonomous vehicle. The apparatus also includes processing circuitry to apply a sensor abstraction process to the sensor data to produce abstracted scene data, and to use the abstracted scene data in a perception phase of a control process for the autonomous vehicle. The sensor abstraction process may include one or more of: applying a Sensor data response normalization process to the sensor data, applying a warp process to the sensor data, and applying a filtering process to the sensor data.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665