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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer program.
-- With regards to claims 1 and 9, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101, because the claims are directed to abstract ideas(mathematical scoring/uncertainty and mental-process classifications based on image data, and fails to integrate the ideas into a practical application. The recited processor/memory and high-level steps, individually and in combination do not add “significantly more”. As well, claim 9 recites receiving, determining, and outputting steps in the claims, however, the claims are absent any element or structure would be capable of performs the steps of the claim, and thus would constitute mental steps.
-- With regards to claims 1 and 13, the claims are directed to “A computer program” which, in and of itself is not capable of being “non-transitory”, because a program is a signal, per se. A review of the specification does not indicate the computer program as a non-transitory element in the disclosure. The specification recites the use of computer program product, and computer readable medium, however, the program itself is not eligible subject matter, because it does not fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 12,15,16, and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 12 has not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 13,18, and 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 13 has not been further treated on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es)(i.e, 408,410) in figures 4-9 shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels-. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
ART REJECTION:
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) 1-5,7-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al(USPat. 11,017,249 B2).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Yu et al(Yu) includes:
1) a processor is met by the processor(805);
2) a memory comprising instructions executable by the processor is met by the memory storage(810) including program(855)(see: Yu, column 10, lines 9-15);
3) the system configured to:
i) receive a plurality of images of the driver of the vehicle, the images containing information indicating a gaze of the driver is met by the camera(140) which is used to capture images of the driver(110), so as to be used to determine direction and focus depth of the driver’s gaze(see: Yu, column 4, lines 49-61);
ii) determine, for each image, a gaze region for the driver, wherein the gaze region comprises a gaze point and a gaze uncertainty value is met by the attention function, wherein the images are utilized to show an attention level(740) for a primary preview region(PPR) as a function of time; wherein the PPR is associated with an attention level dependent on a sequence of gaze points, dynamically changing environmental factors, that are used as parameters of the attention function(see: Yu, column 8, lines 6-19);
iii) associate, for each image, the gaze region with a region among a plurality of regions around the vehicle, wherein the plurality of regions comprises at least one pre-defined attentive region and at least one pre-defined inattentive region is met by the PPR corresponding to primary preview regions to which a driver should pay attention located around the vehicle(see: Yu, column 4, lines 1-13);
iv) determine, based on the determined gaze region, the determined gaze uncertainty value, and the associated region of the vehicle for a plurality of images, a driver distraction level and/or system degradation level indicating a reliability of the driver distraction level is met by the attention level being generated for each PPR that indicates a degree of attention being paid; and wherein when the attention level for the PPR falls below a predetermined threshold, an alert is generated(see: Yu, column 4, lines 21-34);
v) output a driver distraction signal and/or a system degradation signal, wherein the driver distraction signal is indicative of the determined driver distraction level and the system degradation signal is indicative of the determined system degradation level is met by the attention analysis module(870), which determines if attention levels have fallen, and triggers an alert when attention levels fall below a predetermined threshold(see: Yu, column 2, lines 47-58; column 15, lines 21-23).
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the gaze region is a probability distribution with the gaze point being a mean value of the probability distribution and the gaze uncertainty value being a standard deviation of the probability distribution is met by the gaze region being a circle or sphere centered on a gaze point with a radius determined based on a mean error for estimation of the gaze point, wherein the gaze uncertainty being when the analysis module determines that the attention levels have fallen below a predetermined threshold(see: Yu, column 14, lines 66 et seq; column 15 lines 1-23).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the driver distraction level is based on what portion of the gaze region falls within an attentive region or an inattentive region, respectively is met by the gaze detection module(860) determining if driver attention level falls below a threshold(see: Yu, column 15 lines 1-25).
--With regards to claim 4,
1) a high driver distraction level is obtained when a significant portion of the gaze region falls within an inattentive region, and a low driver distraction level is obtained when a significant portion of the gaze region falls within an attentive region would have been met as determined by the attention analysis module, which determines if any PPRs have attention levels that have fallen below a threshold(see: Yu, column 15, lines 1-25); wherein inherently, a higher distraction level would have been obtained when an inattentive region would have been the focus of an operator of the vehicle
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) the system configured to:
i) set one or more threshold signal values for the distraction signal and the system degradation signal to indicate one or more levels of driver distraction and one or more levels of system degradation, respectively is met by the PPRs having attention levels that have fallen below a predetermined threshold, such that alerts are generated(see: Yu, column 15, lines 21-33), wherein the threshold can be a dynamic threshold, such that the threshold may be higher for a poor driver or a less stable vehicle(see: Yu, column 9, lines 45-50).
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the gaze region is determined using machine-learning based gaze estimation algorithm is met by the images being analyzed with a trained machine-learning algorithm(see: Yu, column 4, lines 1-13).
-- With regards to claim 8,
1) the system is further configured to control an apparatus of the vehicle based on the output driver distraction signal and/or the system degradation signal is met by the warning signal being generated based on driver attention level falling below threshold, wherein the apparatus in the form of audible alert or haptic feedback device in a steering wheel to vibrate is actuated(see: Yu, column 12, lines 4-11).
-- Claim 9 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the system of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) the non-transitory computer program comprising instructions which are executed on at least one processor is met by the non-transitory computer readable medium that stores the program executed by the processor(805)(see: Yu, column 10, lines 52 et seq).
-- With regards to claim 11,
1) the eye tracking system configured to provide a driver distraction signal, based on a gaze of a driver of a vehicle in accordance with the is met by the camera(140) that is used to determine the direction and focus depth of the eyes of the driver, for determining the focus depth of the driver’s gaze(see: Yu, column 4, lines 50-61).
-- With regards to claim 14,
1) the vehicle comprising the system of claim 1 is met by the vehicle(210, figure 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al(Yu).
-- With regards to claim 6,
1) the system configured to:
i) categorize the driver distraction signal into one of the following categories: attentive, distracted, degraded, and undetermined and associate the determined reliability with the determined category is not specifically taught.
However, Yu does teach the graph(700) which displays attention level(740), wherein the attention level has various degrees, as seen in figure 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate categories as the distraction level, since Yu already teaches monitoring of decaying attention levels, prior to threshold being reached. Therefore, categories would have helped ensure that a decaying attention level would have been monitored and indicated prior to a threshold level being reached.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686