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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the legal phraseology “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-13, 15, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagisawa (US Pub No. 2009/0164069 A1).
As per claim 1, Yanagisawa discloses an impaired driving prevention system, comprising:
(a) an onboard operating system (Fig. 1, In-Vehicle Controller 20) comprising instructions stored in a memory, which when executed by one or more processors causes said onboard operating system of a vehicle to (paragraph [0030], lines 9-14):
(i) receiving information from at least one detection device is configured to test for an impairment event or impairment activity (paragraph [0021], lines 11-12);
(ii) performing an analysis said information from said at least one detection device to determine if an impairment exists for a vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0023], lines 1-6);
(iii) displaying an amount, degree or level of impairment and/or a type of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator via an onboard interface when said impairment exists (paragraph [0037]); and
(iv) enabling or disabling operation of the vehicle based on said amount, degree or level of impairment and/or the type of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator and/or whether said impairment exists (paragraphs [0021] & [0029]: preventing operation of a vehicle when alcohol is detected in a driver’s breath; paragraph [0036]: allowing operation of the vehicle when no alcohol is detected); and
wherein said onboard operating system includes a verification arrangement to a) ensure a proper testing environment of the vehicle driver or operator during use of said at least one detection device by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or b) ensure that the vehicle driver or operator is the proper individual being tested during use of said at least one detection device (paragraph [0024]: identifying an individual in a driver’s seat, and ensuring the individual sitting in a driver’s seat is the one providing the breath sample).
As per claim 2, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said step of receiving information from said at least one detection device includes determining a presence of a predetermined substance in the vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0021], lines 11-12), and wherein said information includes an amount of said predetermined substance (paragraph [0023], lines 8-10), and wherein said step of performing an analysis includes determining an amount of said predetermined substance in the vehicle driver or operator to determine said amount, degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0022]; paragraph [0023], lines 8-10).
As per claim 3, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to determine whether the vehicle driver or operator is required to use said at least one detection device so as to determine said amount, degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator prior to the vehicle driver or operator being able to operate and/or drive the vehicle (paragraph [0026]: confirming identity of driver providing breath sample).
As per claim 4, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said verification arrangement causes said onboard operating system to:
(a) receive safety data of the vehicle driver or operator from one or more location sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle driver or operator is located in an operating seat of the vehicle;
(b) receive safety data from one or more window sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle’s windows are closed;
(c) receive safety data from one or more door sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle’s doors are locked;
(d) receive safety data from one or more seatbelt sensors and/or seat sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle operator or driver is properly seated in a seat and/or the seat belt is fastened, and/or whether the detected weight on said seat matches or closely matches a weight of the vehicle operator or driver so as to verify that only one person is on said seat and/or the vehicle operator or driver is on the seat;
(e) receive safety data from one or more sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether there are individuals and/or animals in the vehicle other than the vehicle driver or operator prior to and/or at a time the vehicle driver or operator to be tested during said step of perform an analysis of to determine if an impairment exist for a vehicle driver or operator; and/or
(f) receive safety data from one or more sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether an identity of the vehicle operator or driver can be verified prior to and/or at a time the vehicle driver or operator to be tested during said step of perform an analysis of to determine if an impairment exist for a vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0026]: verifying identity of driver providing breath sample and enabling or disabling vehicle operation according to provided breath sample; as sections (a)-(f) are separated by the conjunction “or” it is only required to reject any one of the listed sections, therefore as the prior art of Yanagisawa discloses section (f), the claim as a whole is properly rejected).
As per claim, 5, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to display a warning to the vehicle driver or operator via said onboard interface based on said amount, degree or level of impairment (paragraph [0027]: displaying a warning indicating the driver is impaired).
As per claim 8, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to:
(a) via said onboard interface, receive one or more restrictions set by an authorized user, wherein said one or more restrictions include a minimum amount, degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator, and wherein said authorized user is a parent, guardian, court official, parole officer, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0023], lines 8-15); and
(b) disable operation of the vehicle and/or disable drivability of the vehicle (paragraph [0021], lines 1-3; paragraph [0029]) based on said one or more restrictions (paragraph [0023]).
As per claim 11, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said at least one detection device is configured to test for a predetermined substance; said predetermined substance includes an illegal drug, marihuana, alcohol, cannabidiol (cbd), tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a stimulant, a pain medication, a depressant, a hallucinogen, a psychoactive drug or substance, an over-the-counter medication, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0022]: detecting alcohol).
As per claim 12, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said instructions are installed on said memory of said onboard operating system during vehicle manufacturing and/or vehicle servicing (paragraph [0030], lines 9-14).
As per claim 13, Yanagisawa discloses the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1, wherein said at least one detection device is a breathalyzer, transdermal test, eye scan tester, blood tester, blood pressure tester, body temperature tester, passive breath testing device, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0022], lines 1-2: breathalyzer).
As per claim 15, Yanagisawa discloses a method, comprising:
(a) using an onboard operating system (Fig. 1, In-Vehicle Controller 20) to prevent impaired operation of a vehicle (paragraph [0021], lines 1-3), wherein said onboard operating system includes a processor that includes instructions stored in a memory (paragraph [0030], lines 9-14);
(b) by said processor, receiving information from at least one detection device configured to test for the presence of a predetermined substance in a vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0022]), wherein said information comprises an amount of said predetermined substance (paragraph [0023], lines 8-10);
(c) by the processor, performing an analysis of said amount of said predetermined substance to determine an amount degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator (paragraph [0023], lines 1-6);
(d) by the processor, displaying said amount, degree or level of impairment to the vehicle driver or operator via an onboard interface (paragraph [0037]);
(e) by the processor, enabling or disabling operation and/or drivability of the vehicle based on said amount, degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator (paragraphs [0021] & [0029]: preventing operation of a vehicle when alcohol is detected in a driver’s breath; paragraph [0036]: allowing operation of the vehicle when no alcohol is detected); and
(f) ensuring a proper testing environment of the vehicle driver or operator during use of said at least one detection device by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or ensuring that the vehicle driver or operator is the proper individual being tested during use of said at least one detection device (paragraph [0024]: identifying an individual in a driver’s seat, and ensuring the individual sitting in a driver’s seat is the one providing the breath sample).
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 4) the method as defined in claim 15, wherein said step of ensuring includes, by said processor:
(a) receiving safety data of the vehicle driver or operator from one or more location sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle driver or operator is located in an operating seat of the vehicle;
(b) receiving safety data from one or more window sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle’s windows are closed;
(c) receiving safety data from one or more door sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle’s doors are locked;
(d) receiving safety data from one or more seatbelt sensors and/or seat sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle operator or driver is properly seated in a seat and/or the seat belt is fastened, and/or whether the detected weight on said seat matches or closely matches a weight of the vehicle operator or driver so as to verify that only one person is on said seat and/or the vehicle operator or driver is on the seat;
(e) receiving safety data from one or more sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether there are individuals and/or animals in the vehicle other than the vehicle driver or operator prior to and/or at a time the vehicle driver or operator to be tested during said step of perform an analysis of to determine if an impairment exist for a vehicle driver or operator; and/or
(f) receiving safety data from one or more sensors positioned in the vehicle and, in response, enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle, enable or disable use of said at least one detection device test by the vehicle driver or operator, and/or enable or disable a drivability of the vehicle based on whether an identity of the vehicle operator or driver can be verified prior to and/or at a time the vehicle driver or operator to be tested during said step of perform an analysis of to determine if an impairment exist for a vehicle driver or operator.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claim 8 above) the method of as defined in claim 15, further comprising, by said processor:
(a) receiving one or more restrictions from said onboard interface set by an authorized user, wherein said one or more restrictions include a minimum amount, degree or level of impairment of the vehicle driver or operator for said predetermined substance, and wherein said authorized user is a parent, guardian, court official, parole officer, or combinations thereof; and
(b) disabling operation and/or drivability of the vehicle based on the one or more restrictions.
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) 6, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of Karsten (US Pub No. 2004/0239510 A1).
As per claim 6, Yanagisawa teaches the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1.
Yanagisawa does not expressly teach wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to:
(a) determine said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable; and
(b) responsive to determining that said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable, prompt the vehicle driver or operator via said onboard interface to repeat said test immediately or after a predetermined amount of time.
Karsten teaches wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to:
(a) determine said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable (paragraph [0047], lines 8-11); and
(b) responsive to determining that said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable, prompt the vehicle driver or operator via said onboard interface to repeat said test immediately or after a predetermined amount of time (paragraph [0055], lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement distinguishing between a successful and an unsuccessful test as taught by Karsten, since Karsten states in paragraph [0055] that such a modification would result in receiving an accurate reading.
As per claim 10, Yanagisawa teaches the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1.
Yanagisawa does not expressly teach further comprising a storage and charging unit configured to store and charge said at least one detection device when not in use by the vehicle driver or operator, and wherein said storage and charging unit is partially or fully integrated into the vehicle’s steering wheel, seat, visor, ceiling, dashboard, or door.
Karsten teaches further comprising a storage and charging unit configured to store and charge said at least one detection device when not in use by the vehicle driver or operator, and wherein said storage and charging unit is partially or fully integrated into the vehicle’s steering wheel, seat, visor, ceiling, dashboard, or door (Fig. 4; paragraph [0029]: user retrieves breath alcohol detection device from within the vehicle; paragraph [0045]: breath alcohol detection device is connected to the dash through ignition interlock and also is charged through ignition interlock).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the storage and charging of a breath alcohol device within vehicle as taught by Karsten, since such a modification would result in the device always being ready and available for use by a driver when the driver is attempting to operate the vehicle.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the method of as defined in claim 15, further comprising, by the processor:
(a) determining said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable; and
(b) responsive to determining that said information received from said at least one detection device is unreadable, prompting the vehicle driver or operator via the onboard interface to repeat said test for said presence of said predetermined substance immediately or after a predetermined amount of time.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of Karsten as applied above, and further in view of White et al. (White; US Pub No. 2008/0228365 A1).
As per claim 7, Yanagisawa in view of Karsten teaches the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 6, wherein said instructions stored in said memory further causes said onboard operating system to:
(c) subsequent to the vehicle driver or operator repeating said test (Karsten, paragraph [0045]; paragraph [0055], lines 1-7).
Yanagisawa in view of Karsten does not expressly teach permit the vehicle driver or operator to dispatch emergency personnel and/or an authorized person to the vehicle based on GPS data stored in said onboard operating system.
White teaches permit the vehicle driver or operator to dispatch emergency personnel and/or an authorized person to the vehicle based on GPS data stored in said onboard operating system (paragraph [0067]: contact a police officer to override system by allowing alternate verification by the police officer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the police contact as taught by White, since White states in paragraph [0067] that such a modification would result in allowing alternate verification of a user state by a police officer.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 7 above) the method as defined in claim 17, further includes the step of:
(c) subsequent to the vehicle driver or operator repeating said test, permit the vehicle driver or operator to dispatch emergency personnel and/or an authorized person to the vehicle based on GPS data stored in said onboard operating system.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of Dvoskin (US Patent No. 9,272,713 B1).
As per claim 9, Yanagisawa teaches the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 8.
Yanagisawa does not expressly teach wherein said authorized user can enter a passcode through said onboard interface and/or via a wireless interface to lock or unlock said one or more restrictions in said onboard operating system.
Dvoskin teaches wherein said authorized user can enter a passcode through said onboard interface and/or via a wireless interface to lock or unlock said one or more restrictions in said onboard operating system (col. 8, lines 7-9 & 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the supervisor code as taught by Dvoskin, since Dvoskin states in column 8, lines 30-32 that such a modification would result in only allowing an authorized individual to make modifications to restrictions imposed upon a particular driver.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claim 9 above) the method as defined in claim 19, further comprising, by said authorized user, entering a passcode through said onboard interface to lock or unlock said one or more restrictions in said onboard operating system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa in view of Boult et al. (Boult; US Pub No. 2011/0304465 A1).
As per claim 14, Yanagisawa teaches the impaired driving prevention system as defined in claim 1… and wherein said onboard interface is at least a portion of dashboard display of the vehicle, at least a portion of a center counsel display of the vehicle, at least a portion of an infotainment display of the vehicle, and/or at least a portion of a heads-up display of the vehicle (Fig. 1, Display Device 16).
Yanagisawa does not expressly teach wherein said onboard interface includes a touch-screen interface.
Boult teaches wherein said onboard interface includes a touch-screen interface (paragraph [0038], line 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the touch-screen as taught by Boult, since the use of a touch-screen display within a vehicle is well known in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seidemann (US Pub No. 2023/0127231 A1): similar inventive concept
Ryu (US Patent No. 6,748,301 B1): similar inventive concept
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