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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority document (Application No. PCT/JP2022/035245, filed on 09/21/2022) has been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/26/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1-10 are amended;
Claim 11-17 are new.
Therefore, Claims 1-17 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 8-11 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
The objection to the Specifications, due to informalities, is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is withdrawn.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101;
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "acquire first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section under a first output condition of a sound effect; acquire second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section under a second output condition of the sound effect, the second output condition being different from the first output condition; determine first behavior stability based on the first behavior data; determine second behavior stability based on the second behavior data; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability; and identify, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver";
[B.] “Kimura and Orchansky, individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest a driver assistance system including all the limitations as recited in independent claim 1.”;
[C.] “Kimura uses audio merely as a notification medium for risk advice. Kimura does not disclose applying a first sound-effect output condition and a second sound- effect output condition, acquiring corresponding first and second behavior data under those respective output conditions, determining first and second behavior stability, comparing the first and second behavior stability, and identifying one of the output conditions based on that comparison.”;
[D.] “Orchansky does not disclose using different sound-effect output conditions as variables in an identification process for stabilizing vehicle behavior, and does not disclose comparing vehicle behavior obtained under different sound conditions to select one of those sound conditions”.
[E.] “Wiesenberg does not teach experimentally providing different sound-effect output conditions, receiving behavior data obtained under those respective conditions, determining behavior stability for each condition, comparing the behavior stability, and selecting an output condition for a target driver based on that comparison”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., C., D. and E. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "provide a plurality of different output conditions for output of sound effects to respective drivers of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle driven by the target driver" [examiner’s emphasis], without any antecedent basis for enabling communication with multiple vehicles.
In addition, Claim 17 includes the limitation “when a number of pieces of the behavior data received from the plurality of vehicles is insufficient”, which is indefinite since no guidelines are provided to determine a meaningful level of sufficiency.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as depending from an independent claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As described in MPEP § 2106, the analyses as to whether a claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 includes the following determinations:
(1) Whether the claim is to a statutory category, i.e. to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter ("Step 1")- see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.03.
(2) If the claim is to a statutory category, whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(3) If the claim recites a judicial exception, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ("Step 2A, Prong Two") - see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.04.
(4) If the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception ("Step 2B") – see MPEP §§ 2106, subsection III, and 2106.05.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are a system, Claim 8 is a vehicle, Claim 9 is a recording medium, Claim 10 is a method, and Claims 11-17 are a system. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101 (MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is considered a representative independent Claims 1 and 8-10. The examiner has determined, the following analysis is applicable to each independent claim. With regard to Claim 1:
A driver assistance system configured to assist a driver of vehicle, the driver assistance system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section under a first output condition of a sound effect; acquire second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section under a second output condition of the sound effect, the second output condition being different from the first output condition; determine first behavior stability based on the first behavior data; determine second behavior stability based on the second behavior data; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability; and identify, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong 1 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. [See MPEP 2106.04(a)-2106.04(a)(2)]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, such an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. But for the additional elements, Claim 1 recites the general idea – readily performed by a passenger in the vehicle – of gathering data to identify that the driver’s performance is sub-optimal and audibly informing/suggesting to the driver to modify their driving performance. Moreover, the passenger can use their best judgement to decide when to not over-react to a low level of sub-optimal driving performance, such as driving a bit too fast, accelerating a bit too hard from a stop sign, etc. Thus, the claim recites a simple process, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a combination of abstract ideas capable of being performed by the limitations of the human mind. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Furthermore, the courts have deemed that implementation of an abstract idea by a generic computer (“one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to”) is equivalent to human performing the abstract idea:
Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).
On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong 2 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 or processor 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.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing underlined additional limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner contends that:
The additional limitation of “A driver assistance system configured to assist a driver of vehicle…while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section…while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section” merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]; and
The additional limitation “one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to”) is recited at such a high level of generality as to be the equivalent of a generic computing device on which a judicial exceptions is applied:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The examiner further submits that the aforementioned additional limitations in Claim 1 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above for Step 2A, Prong 2. “A driver assistance system configured to assist a driver of vehicle…while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section” merely links the judicial exception, in a general manner, to a particular technological field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. And implementing series of processes (i.e., data acquisition, sound effect output and identification) via processor and memory components falls under the category of “merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea” [MPEP 2106.05(f)], and thus, does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The examiner finds that independent Claims 8-11 include the same limitations as Claim 1 associated with “driver assistance system” (discussed above under Step 2A, Prong 1). Thus, each of these claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, constituting an abstract idea under the “mental processes” judicial exception.
Dependent: Claims 2-7 and 12-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, with regard to Claims 2-7 and 12-17, the claimed invention is directed to additional abstract ideas under the “mental processes” judicial exception:
Claims 2-3 and 12-13: additional data acquisition and data evaluation with a high level of generality, without significantly more [MPEP 2106.05(g)];
Claims 4 and 14: use of judgement to select an option from a list;
Claims 5-6 and 15-16: additional data evaluation;
Claims 7 and 17: additional data acquisition.
Therefore, Claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over the combination of McClellan et al. (US 2008/0319602 A1, henceforth McClellan)
Regarding Claim 1, McClellan discloses the limitations: a driver assistance system configured to assist a target driver of a vehicle {a system for providing feedback to the user, Abstract, via mentoring to improve driver behavior, ¶35}, the driver assistance system {Fig. 1 and ¶20} comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors {monitoring devices located at 202 and 203, ¶22 and Fig. 2, include processors (¶19), and hence are a computerized devices additionally include memory; additionally, the system in Fig. 1 is networked to server 109 and database 110}, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: acquire first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitor vehicle operation (¶19) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24)} under a first output condition of a sound effect {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitoring vehicle operation (¶19-21) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24) and other violations (¶38) but must be triggered (¶24, ¶38) thus the initial condition is no sound if untriggered, i.e., normal satisfactory vehicle operation}; acquire second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section {at a later time, a preset triggering threshold (¶30) is reached that triggers an audible warning to the driver (¶40)} under a second output condition of the sound effect {audible warning: “triggering events with visual and/or audible warning to change driver behavior”, ¶40)}, the second output condition being different from the first output condition {as detailed above, triggering event represents no sound at a first time and sound at a second time; comparably, the audible warning is changed if at a later time the driving/driver behavior is unchanged, ¶40)}; determine first behavior stability based on the first behavior data {pre-triggering, driving is not aggressive and/or driver has not initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; determine second behavior stability based on the second behavior data {post-triggering, driving is aggressive and/or driver initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability {triggering condition determined, ¶40-41}; and identify, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver {audible warning initiate, including multiple types, which can change in nature if driver behavior unchanged, ¶40}.
Regarding Claim 2, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire driver characteristic information indicating a characteristic of the target driver {¶44, variable applied to driver may be associated with a specific group that the driver falls into, such as age or driving experience, and threshold criteria and mentoring messages may be specific to a particular vehicle or driver}, and identify the selected output condition for a predetermined characteristic of the target driver based on the driver characteristic information {¶41, user selects threshold level for user to respond to feedback, which can be a preselected time interval (¶6), after which “a different mentoring message may be provided to the driver”}.
Regarding Claim 3, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the one or more processors are configured to: acquire traveling environment information indicating a traveling environment of the vehicle {determining road conditions to match an acceptable speed limit for that type of condition, ¶6, determined via data collection, ¶46}, and identify the selected output condition for a predetermined traveling environment based on the traveling-environment information {user selection capability to determine the nature of the warning message which can be variable for different conditions and behavior, ¶48}.
Regarding Claim 4, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each of the first output condition and the second output condition includes one or more of an output timing {¶41, user selects threshold level for user to respond to feedback, which can be preselected time interval (¶6), and can include escalation of the warnings as more time goes on without behavioral changes, with the audible message being the latter message in sequence of warnings, ¶41}, a number of times of outputs, a tone color, a volume, a length, and a tempo of the sound effect.
Regarding Claim 5, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the one or more processors are configured to after identifying the selected output condition, fix the output condition of the sound effect to the selected output condition {first warning type alert delivered to driver after threshold exceeded, ¶41, different messages are delivered to the driver if the driving behavior is not changed, } while acquiring additional behavior data {driving behavior continuously monitored (¶19-21), with data collected and saved to a server (¶30)} indicating behavior of the vehicle {new warning type alert if second speeding threshold exceeded (¶41, 48)}; determine additional behavior stability based on the additional behavior data {Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this as additional data indicates driving behavior is worsening, thus requiring stronger action to achieve stability: a third speeding threshold is exceeded resulting in a different warning (¶41) or stronger warning (i.e., “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48)}; and re-identify the selected output condition when the additional behavior stability satisfies a predetermined restart condition {¶41, triggering of a second threshold with activation of a different type of driver notification, corresponds to the end of first-trigger regime, and start of second-trigger regime}.
Regarding Claim 6, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured to use a first setting condition to identify the selected output condition before the re-identification {new warning type alert if second speeding threshold exceeded (¶41, 48), and user selects threshold and message type, ¶41}, and to use a second setting condition different from the first setting condition when re-identifying the selected output condition {a third speeding threshold is exceeded resulting in a different type of driver alert or warning (¶41) or stronger warning: “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48}.
Regarding Claim 7, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured when a number of pieces of the first behavior data or the second behavior data is insufficient {driver fails to respond to alert message or warning when first threshold is exceeded, ¶41, or an even stronger warning: “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48}, to acquire additional behavior data or correct the first behavior stability or the second behavior stability based on behavior data already acquired {driver’s failure to respond to more than one alert message of exceeding a threshold, resulting in a further alert message, corresponding to failure to improve or stabilize the driving behavior, due to more and more time passing without driver action, ¶40-41}.
Regarding Claim 8, McClellan discloses the limitations: a vehicle {101, Fig. 1} comprising a driver assistance apparatus {Fig. 1 and ¶20} that assists driving of the vehicle {a system for providing feedback to the user, Abstract, via mentoring to improve driver behavior, ¶35}, the driver assistance apparatus being configured to acquire first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitor vehicle operation (¶19) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24)} under a first output condition of a sound effect {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitoring vehicle operation (¶19-21) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24) and other violations (¶38) but must be triggered (¶24, ¶38) thus the initial condition is no sound if untriggered, i.e., normal satisfactory vehicle operation}; acquire second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section {at a later time, a preset triggering threshold (¶30) is reached that triggers an audible warning to the driver (¶40)} under a second output condition of the sound effect {audible warning: “triggering events with visual and/or audible warning to change driver behavior”, ¶40)}, the second output condition being different from the first output condition {as detailed above, triggering event represents no sound at a first time and sound at a second time; comparably, the audible warning is changed if at a later time the driving/driver behavior is unchanged, ¶40)}; determine first behavior stability based on the first behavior data {pre-triggering, driving is not aggressive and/or driver has not initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; determine second behavior stability based on the second behavior data {post-triggering, driving is aggressive and/or driver initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability {triggering condition determined, ¶40-41}; and identify, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver {audible warning initiate, including multiple types, which can change in nature if driver behavior unchanged, ¶40}.
Regarding Claim 9, McClellan discloses the limitations: a recording medium recording a computer program {recording data, ¶21&25, to a network server 109, Fig. 1; also, data collection and recording during training mode, ¶49, when a driving profile is created, ¶54} for a driver assistance system {Fig. 1 and ¶20} that assists driving of a vehicle {a system for providing feedback to the user, Abstract, via mentoring to improve driver behavior, ¶35}, the computer program causing a computer {monitoring devices 202 and 203, ¶22 and Fig. 2, include processors (¶19), and hence are a computerized devices including memory; additionally, the system in Fig. 1 is networked to server 109 and database 110} to acquire first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitor vehicle operation (¶19) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24)} under a first output condition of a sound effect {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitoring vehicle operation (¶19-21) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24) and other violations (¶38) but must be triggered (¶24, ¶38) thus the initial condition is no sound if untriggered, i.e., normal satisfactory vehicle operation}; acquire second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section {at a later time, a preset triggering threshold (¶30) is reached that triggers an audible warning to the driver (¶40)} under a second output condition of the sound effect {audible warning: “triggering events with visual and/or audible warning to change driver behavior”, ¶40)}, the second output condition being different from the first output condition {as detailed above, triggering event represents no sound at a first time and sound at a second time; comparably, the audible warning is changed if at a later time the driving/driver behavior is unchanged, ¶40)}; determine first behavior stability based on the first behavior data {pre-triggering, driving is not aggressive and/or driver has not initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; determine second behavior stability based on the second behavior data {post-triggering, driving is aggressive and/or driver initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability {triggering condition determined, ¶40-41}; and identify, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver {audible warning initiate, including multiple types, which can change in nature if driver behavior unchanged, ¶40}.
Regarding Claim 10, McClellan discloses the limitations: driver assistance method of assisting driving of a vehicle {a method for providing feedback to the user, Abstract, via mentoring to improve driver behavior, ¶35, comprising the driver assistance system in Fig. 1 and ¶20}, the driver assistance method comprising: acquiring first behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a first predetermined section {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitor vehicle operation (¶19) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24)} under a first output condition of a sound effect {¶22 and Fig. 2, monitoring devices located at 201, 202 and 203 (201 coupled to an vehicle OBD port) continuously monitoring vehicle operation (¶19-21) for aggressive driving behavior (¶24) and other violations (¶38) but must be triggered (¶24, ¶38) thus the initial condition is no sound if untriggered, i.e., normal satisfactory vehicle operation}; acquiring second behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle while the vehicle travels through a second predetermined section {at a later time, a preset triggering threshold (¶30) is reached that triggers an audible warning to the driver (¶40)} under a second output condition of the sound effect {audible warning: “triggering events with visual and/or audible warning to change driver behavior”, ¶40)}, the second output condition being different from the first output condition {as detailed above, triggering event represents no sound at a first time and sound at a second time; comparably, the audible warning is changed if at a later time the driving/driver behavior is unchanged, ¶40)}; determining first behavior stability based on the first behavior data {pre-triggering, driving is not aggressive and/or driver has not initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; determining second behavior stability based on the second behavior data {post-triggering, driving is aggressive and/or driver initiated a violation, ¶30 and ¶40-41}; compare the first behavior stability and the second behavior stability {triggering condition determined, ¶40-41}; and identifying, based on the comparison, either the first output condition or the second output condition as a selected output condition for the driver {audible warning initiate, including multiple types, which can change in nature if driver behavior unchanged, ¶40}.
Regarding Claim 11, McClellan discloses the limitations: a driver assistance system configured to assist a target driver of a vehicle {a system for providing feedback to the user, Abstract, via mentoring to improve driver behavior, ¶35}, the driver assistance system {Fig. 1} comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories communicably coupled to the one or more processors {monitoring devices 202 and 203, ¶22 and Fig. 2, include processors (¶19), and hence are a computerized devices including memory; additionally, the system in Fig. 1 is networked to server 109 and database 110}, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: provide a plurality of different output conditions for output of sound effects {“mentoring message may be an audible warning, such as a spoken message, or a visual warning, such as a text message”, Abstract} to respective drivers of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle driven by the target driver {The examiner interprets this to imply providing different sounds to drivers in different categories: In ¶44, the message or alert provided to driver is based on a number of different categories ¶44}; receive, from the plurality of vehicles {the system for providing real-time feedback to a driver, ¶6, which applies to a fleet of vehicles, ¶19}, behavior data indicating behaviors of the plurality of vehicles {data from each vehicle is transmitted via a network (108, Fig. 1) to a remote computer system (server 109) and compilation of a database 110, ¶20} while the sound effects are output under respective ones of the plurality of different output conditions {per ¶35-36, real-time mentoring or feedback is provided to the driver based on the specific condition at issue, such as improper driving behavior versus illegal driving behavior, which will lead to different audio messages due to the differing severity: “a spoken message identifying the speeding condition or a spoken message instructing the driver to slow down may be played to the driver.”}; determine behavior stability for each of the plurality of different output conditions based on the received behavior data {per ¶36, deciding on the nature of the poor driving performance or legal violation in real-time}; compare the behavior stability determined for the plurality of different output conditions {evaluating if driving conditions exceed a threshold, see at lease, ¶30&40}; and identify, based on the comparison, one of the plurality of different output conditions as a selected output condition for the target driver {per ¶35-36, based on the nature of the poor driving performance or legal violation (like speeding), an appropriate notification is applied, such verbal message, visual warning (e.g., flashing lights) or a visual message (e.g., text warning messages, ¶40)}.
Regarding Claim 12, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire driver characteristic information indicating a characteristic of the target driver {¶44, variable applied to driver may be associated with a specific group that the driver falls into, such as age or driving experience, and threshold criteria and mentoring messages may be specific to a particular vehicle or driver}, and identify the selected output condition for a predetermined characteristic of the target driver based on the driver characteristic information {¶41, user selects threshold level for user to respond to feedback, which can be a preselected time interval (¶6), after which “a different mentoring message may be provided to the driver”}.
Regarding Claim 13, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the one or more processors are configured to acquire traveling environment information indicating a traveling environment of the vehicle {determining road conditions to match an acceptable speed limit for that type of condition, ¶6, determined via data collection, ¶46}, and identify the selected output condition for a predetermined traveling environment based on the traveling-environment information {user selection capability to determine the nature of the warning message which can be variable for different conditions and behavior, ¶48}.
Regarding Claim 14, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein each of the plurality of different output conditions includes one or more of an output timing {¶41, user selects threshold level for user to respond to feedback, which can be preselected time interval (¶6), and can include escalation of the warnings as more time goes on without behavioral changes, with the audible message being the latter message in sequence of warnings, ¶41}, a number of times of outputs, a tone color, a volume, a length, and a tempo of the sound effect.
Regarding Claim 15, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the one or more processors are configured to after identifying the selected output condition, provide the selected output condition for output of the sound effect to the vehicle driven by the target driver {first warning type alert delivered to driver after threshold exceeded, ¶41, different messages are delivered to the driver if the driving behavior is not changed, ¶19}; receive additional behavior data indicating behavior of the vehicle driven by the target driver {driving behavior being continuously monitored (¶19), with data collected and saved to a server (¶30)} while the sound effect is output under the selected output condition {new warning type alert if second speeding threshold exceeded (¶41, 48)}; determine additional behavior stability based on the additional behavior data {Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this as additional data indicates driving behavior is worsening, thus requiring stronger action to achieve stability: a third speeding threshold is exceeded resulting in a different warning (¶41) or stronger warning (i.e., “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48)}; and re-identify the selected output condition when the additional behavior stability satisfies a predetermined restart condition {¶41, triggering of a second threshold with activation of a different type of driver notification, corresponds to the end of first-trigger regime, and start of second-trigger regime}.
Regarding Claim 16, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured to use a first setting condition to identify the selected output condition before the re-identification {new warning type alert if second speeding threshold exceeded (¶41, 48), and user selects threshold and message type, ¶40}, and to use a second setting condition different from the first setting condition when re-identifying the selected output condition {a third speeding threshold is exceeded resulting in a different type of driver alert or warning (¶41) or stronger warning: “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48}.
Regarding Claim 17, McClellan discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, McClellan explicitly recites the limitation: wherein, the one or more processors are configured when a number of pieces of the first behavior data or the second behavior data is insufficient {driver fails to respond to alert message or warning when first threshold is exceeded, ¶41, or an even stronger warning: “set multiple speeding thresholds with progressively shrill mentoring message to focus the driver feedback on the speeding violations”, ¶48}, to acquire additional behavior data or correct the first behavior stability or the second behavior stability based on behavior data already acquired {driver’s failure to respond to more than one alert message of exceeding a threshold, resulting in a further alert message, corresponding to failure to improve or stabilize the driving behavior, due to more and more time passing without driver action, ¶40-41}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,160,463 B1 – Teaches of varying the pitch and amplitude of a sound alert if a driver ignores an alert associated with distracted driving.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights