DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/772,530 filed on April 6, 2026 in which claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 12 were amended, claims 2 and 10 were cancelled, and claim 13 was added.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-13 are pending, of which claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims include the limitation “emerging an emergent driving assistant from an inactive state,” which is awkward and confusing and does not conform to typical English usage. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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, 3, 5-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran, US Publication 2021/0271258 (hereinafter Tran), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 6, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses a method for assisting a driver in relation to driving a vehicle, the method comprising “employing a first camera having a view external to the vehicle to determine a constraint imposed on motion of vehicles on a section of a road on which the vehicle is operating” (Tran ¶¶ 26, 30) where a multi-focal camera can be mounted to the front of a car, which gives it a view external to the vehicle, (Tran ¶ 26), which is used to determine a plurality of constraints such as “Traffic Signal Recognition, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Detection, [and] Pedestrian Detection.” (Tran ¶ 30). Additionally, Tran discloses “determining that said vehicle is being operated in a manner that fails to comply with the constraint imposed on motion of vehicles” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of determining that the vehicle is taking too long to brake, where the expected distance to brake is another constraint imposed on motions of vehicles. Tran discloses that using a camera to detect distances is within the scope of its system. (Tran ¶ 130). Further, Tran discloses “determining that said driver exhibits a feature, said feature being a non-neutral gaze state based on input from a second camera having a view internal to the vehicle” (Tran ¶ 30) by using a camera facing the driver (i.e., a second camera having a view internal to the vehicle) that determines attentiveness using gaze detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that determining attentiveness requires determining whether the driver is in a neutral or non-neutral state as those terms are used in the present specification. (Spec. ¶¶ 16-17). Finally, Tran discloses “emerging an emergent driving assistant from an inactive state; and relieving the driver of the vehicle from completely controlling a vehicle subsystem of the vehicle by outputting a control signal over the vehicle subsystem, wherein the vehicle subsystem includes a speed-control subsystem of the vehicle” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of the system determining that the driver cannot control the vehicle and automatically taking control of the vehicle to come to a complete stop. The act of coming to a complete stop is a speed-control. By transitioning from a state in which the driver is in control to a state in which the vehicle is in control is transitioning the autonomous driving from an inactive state to an active state. The examiner further notes that Tran explicitly considers all possible combinations disclosed. (Tran ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 3, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “wherein said constraint is a speed limit.” (Tran ¶ 194).
Regarding claim 5, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “wherein determining that a driver of said vehicle exhibits said feature comprises making said determination based at least in part on a signal from the second camera that is pointing at said driver.” (Tran ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 6, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “wherein determining that a driver of said vehicle exhibits said feature comprises making said determination based at least in part on a signal from a microphone that is directed towards said driver.” (Tran ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 7, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “determining said constraint based at least in part on observations of signage by the first camera.” (Tran ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 8, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “determining said constraint based at least in part on a GPS signal.” (Tran ¶ 71).
Regarding claim 9, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran discloses “wherein said feature includes a non-neutral emotional state” (Tran ¶ 20) where the emotional state may be panic, which is a non-neutral emotional state.
Regarding claim 12, Tran discloses an apparatus comprising an emergent driving assistant for a vehicle, said emergent driving assistant comprising control circuitry “wherein said control circuitry receives a constraint signal, a motion signal, and a feature signal” (Tran ¶¶ 30, 219) determine a plurality of constraints such as “Traffic Signal Recognition, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Detection, [and] Pedestrian Detection (Tran ¶ 30), motion signals in the form of the vehicle speed (Tran ¶ 219), and feature signals as discussed in the following limitation. (Tran ¶ 30). Additionally, Tran discloses “wherein said feature signal is in one of a first state and a second state, said first state indicating that said driver exhibits a non-neutral gaze state based on input from an first camera with an internal view of the vehicle and said second state indicating that said driver exhibits both a neutral emotional state and a neutral gaze state” (Tran ¶ 30) by using a camera facing the driver (i.e., a first camera having a view internal to the vehicle) that determines attentiveness using gaze detection. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have understood that determining attentiveness requires determining whether the driver is in a neutral or non-neutral state as those terms are used in the present specification. (Spec. ¶¶ 16-17). Further, Tran discloses “wherein said constraint signal is indicative of a constraint on motion of said vehicle on a section of a road determined from a second camera with an external view from the vehicle” (Tran ¶¶ 26, 30) where a multi-focal camera can be mounted to the front of a car, which gives it a view external to the vehicle, (Tran ¶ 26), which is used to determine constraints such as “Traffic Signal Recognition, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Detection, [and] Pedestrian Detection.” (Tran ¶ 30). Moreover, Tran discloses “wherein said motion signal is indicative of motion of said vehicle on said section of said road” (Tran ¶ 219) where the speed is indicative of the motion of the vehicle. Likewise, Tran discloses “wherein said control circuitry is configured to determine, based on said constraint signal and said motion signal, whether said vehicle is being operated in a manner that violates said constraint on said motion of said vehicle on said section of said road” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of determining that the vehicle is taking too long to brake, where the expected distance to brake is another constraint imposed on motions of vehicles and the fact that it is “longer than expected” is a speed constraint. Tran discloses that using a camera to detect distances is within the scope of its system. (Tran ¶ 130). Finally, Tran discloses “wherein said control circuitry is configured to output a control signal to a vehicle subsystem when said feature signal is in said first state and when said vehicle is being operated in a manner that violates said constraint on said motion of said vehicle on said section of said road, said control signal relieving said driver from being able to completely control said vehicle subsystem” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of the system determining that the driver cannot control the vehicle and automatically taking control of the vehicle to come to a complete stop. The act of coming to a complete stop is a speed-control. By transitioning from a state in which the driver is in control to a state in which the vehicle is in control is transitioning the autonomous driving from an inactive state to an active state. The examiner further notes that Tran explicitly considers all possible combinations disclosed. (Tran ¶ 68).
Regarding claim 13, Tran discloses a method for assisting a driver in relation to driving a vehicle, the method comprising “employing a first camera of the vehicle having a view external to the vehicle to determine a constraint imposed on motion of vehicles on a section of a road on which the vehicle is operating” (Tran ¶¶ 26, 30) where a multi-focal camera can be mounted to the front of a car, which gives it a view external to the vehicle, (Tran ¶ 26), which is used to determine a plurality of constraints such as “Traffic Signal Recognition, Lane Departure Warning, Collision Detection, [and] Pedestrian Detection.” (Tran ¶ 30). Additionally, Tran discloses “determining that the vehicle is being operated in a manner that fails to comply with the constraint on the section of the road on which the vehicle is operating” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of determining that the vehicle is taking too long to brake, where the expected distance to brake is another constraint imposed on motions of vehicles. Tran discloses that using a camera to detect distances is within the scope of its system. (Tran ¶ 130). Further, Tran discloses “determining that said driver exhibits a non-neutral emotional state based on input from a second camera of the vehicle having a view internal to the vehicle” (Tran ¶ 20) where camera detects that the driver is in the emotional state of panic, which is a non-neutral emotional state. Finally, Tran discloses “emerging an emergent driving assistant from an inactive state; relieving the driver of the vehicle from completely controlling a speed-control subsystem of the vehicle by outputting a control signal over the speed-control subsystem until the vehicle is restored to compliance with the constraint; and returning the emergent driving assistant to the inactive state” (Tran ¶ 180) by giving an example of the system determining that the driver cannot control the vehicle and automatically taking control of the vehicle to come to a complete stop, which complies with various safe driving constraints discussed throughout Tran. The act of coming to a complete stop is a speed-control. By transitioning from a state in which the driver is in control to a state in which the vehicle is in control is transitioning the autonomous driving from an inactive state to an active state. The examiner further notes that Tran explicitly considers all possible combinations disclosed. (Tran ¶ 68).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Araki et al., US Publication 2024/0034335 (hereinafter Araki), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated January 6, 2026.
Regarding claim 4, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein outputting the control signal comprises outputting a control signal that curtails said driver's ability to drive faster than a particular speed but permits said driver to drive at a speed lower than said particular speed.”
However, Araki discloses “w wherein outputting the control signal comprises outputting a control signal that curtails said driver's ability to drive faster than a particular speed but permits said driver to drive at a speed lower than said particular speed” (Araki ¶ 67) by limiting the speed of the vehicle, which allows the driver to drive at speeds lower than the particular speed limit but not at speeds faster than the limit.
Tran and Araki are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting a driver’s state.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tran and Araki before him or her to modify the speed control of Tran to include the particular speed control of Araki.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Tran teaches the “base device” for controlling a vehicle based on a plurality of constraints. Further, Araki teaches the “known technique” limiting a vehicle’s speed while still allowing the driver to maintain control that is applicable to the base device of Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because this feature would be implemented in the software of Tran meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would merely have to transfer to computer code, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Tran discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tran disclose does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein said emergent driver assistant carries out the steps of determining that said driver no longer exhibits said feature, restoring said driver's control over said vehicle subsystem, and transitioning into its inactive state.”
Araki discloses “wherein said emergent driver assistant carries out the steps of determining that said driver no longer exhibits said feature, restoring said driver’s control over said vehicle subsystem, and transitioning into its inactive state” (Araki ¶ 46) where the controls occur in the curriculum based on the driver’s emotional state, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean that when the driver was no longer in the non-neutral emotional state, the controls for that state would no longer be applied.
Tran and Araki are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of detecting a driver’s state.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tran and Araki before him or her to modify the vehicle control of Tran to include the return of control to the driver of Araki.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Tran teaches the “base device” taking control of a vehicle when a driver is incapacitated. Further, Araki teaches the “known technique” for restoring control to a driver after taking control from that driver that is applicable to the base device of Tran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because this feature would be implemented in the software of Tran meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would merely have to transfer to computer code, yielding predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Remarks 6) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103 (Remarks 6-7) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights