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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of US Application No. 18/666,239 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 17 and canceled claims 3, 10, and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 recites “determining, by the at least one processor from the location data and the information associated with the location, that the vehicle is located within an area with an intermittently reduced speed limit during a speed limit reduction period”. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations. The specification does not describe determining an area with an intermittently reduced speed limit during a speed limit reduction period. The specification discloses a school zone with a reduced speed limit. See ¶ [0040]. However, the specification does not disclose that the speed limit of the school zone is intermittently reduced. While it may be within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art that school zones may have variable/intermittent speed limits, school zones do not inherently have intermittently reduced speed limits. A school zone speed limit may be fixed. Therefore, the subject limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 112(a) because they depend from one of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15. However, new rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 under § 103 are set forth below.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grinenval et al. (US 2015/0102929 A1, “Grinenval”) in view of Cooprider et al. (US 2012/0303222 A1, “Cooprider”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Grinenval discloses a method and device for warning the driver of a motor vehicle in the event of lack of attention and teaches:
[ ];
[ ];
determining, by the at least one processor [ ], that the vehicle is located within [a school zone] (at step 11, determination is made whether the driving situation fulfills one or more predefined conditions – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]; conditions include the vehicle being driven on a critical route having an increased potential for accidents, such as in a school zone – see at least ¶ [0011]);
retrieving, from at least one image sensor disposed within the vehicle, a set of image data depicting an operator of the vehicle (in-car camera for monitoring the driver – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0024]);
determining, by the at least one processor based upon the set of image data, that the operator is distracted (ascertain with the aid of an image processing software whether the driver's eyes are open or closed, or, for example, whether he/she has tilted the head to one side. Alternatively or additionally, the driving behavior of the driver, such as the steering behavior, braking behavior, or acceleration behavior, may be monitored with the aid of appropriate sensors. Certain behavioral patterns may then be used to recognize whether or not the driver is attentive – see at least ¶ [0024]; at step 10 determination is made whether driver is attentive or inattentive – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]) while the vehicle is located within the [school zone] (at step 11, determination is made whether the driving situation fulfills one or more predefined conditions – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]; conditions include the vehicle being driven on a critical route having an increased potential for accidents, such as in a school zone – see at least ¶ [0011]); and
in response to determining that the operator is distracted while the vehicle is located within the [school zone], automatically causing the vehicle to activate an [alarm] (at step 12, warning signal is output to the driver – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]).
Grinenval fails to teach accumulating, by at least one processor from a set of sensors, a set of sensor data during operation of a vehicle, the set of sensor data including location data; retrieving, from a remote server using the location data, information associated with a location; determining, by the at least one processor from the location data and the information associated with the location, that the vehicle is located within an area with an intermittently reduced speed limit during a speed limit reduction period; activate an autonomous mode.
However, Cooprider discloses a driver assistance system and teaches:
accumulating, by at least one processor from a set of sensors, a set of sensor data during operation of a vehicle, the set of sensor data including location data (GPS unit 202 provides vehicle location data to positioning engine 206 – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0019]);
retrieving, from a remote server using the location data, information associated with a location (map matching module 210 uses enhanced location of the vehicle from positioning engine 206 or raw location data from GPS 202 to extract all navigation characteristics associated with the vehicle location – see at least ¶ [0022]);
determining, by the at least one processor from the location data and the information associated with the location, that the vehicle is located within [a school zone] (map matching algorithm uses the vehicle position coordinates as a reference to look up navigation characteristics associated with the position coordinates in map database 208 – see at least ¶ [0041]; navigation characteristics include school zone – see at least ¶ [0042]);
[ ], automatically causing the vehicle to activate an autonomous mode (application algorithms, such as a school zone warning algorithm, may be executed based on navigation characteristics – see at least ¶ [0022]; application algorithms may be provided to a vehicle control module 238 to send a control signal to various vehicle actuators to directly change how the vehicle operates without human intervention – see at least ¶ [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and device for warning the driver of a motor vehicle in the event of lack of attention to provide for retrieving information and determining that the vehicle is located within an area such as a school zone, as taught by Cooprider, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow the transmission of a warning signal or vehicle control signal based on the vehicle location within a school zone (Cooprider at ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Grinenval further teaches:
collecting, by the at least one processor from the set of sensors, a set of telematics data associated with the operation of the vehicle (sensor data of a steering wheel sensor, brakes sensor, accelerator pedal sensor – see at least ¶ [0024]; monitoring the driving situation of the vehicle, one or multiple sensors may also be provided, e.g., surroundings sensors including radar sensors or an outside camera, wheel rotational speed sensors, a rain and/or temperature sensor, as well as other common sensors – see at least ¶ [0025]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Grinenval further teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor from the location data included in the set of sensor data, that the vehicle is located in a school zone having the [ ] reduced speed limit (at step 11, determination is made whether the driving situation fulfills one or more predefined conditions – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0028]; conditions include the vehicle being driven on a critical route having an increased potential for accidents, such as in a school zone – see at least ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Grinenval further teaches:
capturing an additional set of sensor data (sensor data of a steering wheel sensor, brakes sensor, accelerator pedal sensor – see at least ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Grinenval further teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor based on the set of image data and the additional set of sensor data, that the operator is distracted (whether or not the driver is attentive may also be recognized from the sensor data of a steering wheel sensor which detects the steering behavior of the driver and/or from a brake sensor which detects the actuation of the foot brake and/or from a sensor which detects directly or indirectly the actuation of the accelerator pedal – see at least ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, 14, and 20, Nix further teaches:
determining, by the at least one processor, an action for the vehicle to undergo to improve safety of the operation of the vehicle (at step 12, warning signal is output to the driver if the driver is inattentive and driving on a critical route having an increased potential for accidents, such as in a school zone – see at least ¶ [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights