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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to remarks filed on 07/22/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-6 are newly added. Claims 1-6 are now pending in the instant application. A complete response to applicants remarks follows here below.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner withdraws the Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) as the claims have been amended to recite sufficient structure to avoid such interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Suggestion
The Examiner suggests adding the article --“a”-- after “measure” and before “time” at line 3 of claim 2 so as to resemble the claim language reflected at each of dependent claims 3 and 4.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delahaye (US 20220076040 A1) in combination with Hashimoto (US 20210300401 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 (currently amended): Delahaye discloses an inattentiveness determination device (Refer to para [039]; “FIG. 1 shows the front of a motor vehicle 1 (also called “vehicle 1” below) with an on-board device 10 for detecting the distraction of a driver 4 of the vehicle 1.”) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (Refer to para [010]; “a processing module”) and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Refer to para [010]; “a processing module for processing the acquired image”): acquire a photographed image of a driver driving a moving object (Refer to para [008]; “an image acquisition assembly designed to acquire at least one image of a detection area located in said vehicle, said detection area comprising at least part of the driver of the vehicle,”); and output an alert (“an emission module 30 for emitting an alarm signal.”) detect a gaze direction of the driver based on the photographed image (Refer to para [050]; “The processing module 24 is also designed to determine a gaze direction of the driver 4 when images are acquired by the two-dimensional sensor 23.”) detect a face direction of the driver based on the photographed image (Refer to para [045]; “The two-dimensional sensor 23 is designed for example to capture an image of the face of the driver 4, and in particular of his eyes.”) and determine whether a face of the driver can be detected based on the photographed image (Refer to para [048]; “The processing module 24 is designed to receive the acquired images and determine a posture of the driver 4 in the vehicle 1.”) in a case where both of the gaze direction and the face direction cannot be detected (Refer to para [075, 076 and 080]; “In this step E44, the other image is also processed in order to determine a position of the head and a gaze direction of the driver 4 (this gaze direction, as already indicated, being one example of a direction associated with the head of the driver). At the end of step E44, the processing module 24 has therefore determined the representation of the posture of the driver 4 and his gaze direction. If the gaze of the driver 4 is not oriented toward the hand located outside the permitted area, the method returns to step E42.” ) and output an alert in a case where the face of the driver cannot be detected (Refer to para [081-085]; “As in step E12, the time measurement module 28 measures the detection time for which the head of the driver remains directed toward his hand, that is to say the time for which the hand is located in the determined gaze direction. This detection time is then compared with a predetermined threshold (step E54). If the detection time is less than this predetermined threshold, the driver is not considered to be distracted and the method returns to step E42. By contrast, if the detection time is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, the method continues with steps E56 and E58 (similar to steps E16 and E18). In these steps, the analysis module 26 determines whether the driver is in a driving condition. In particular, the driver is in a driving condition if an autonomous driving unit 50 is not being used or if the speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than a predetermined speed value. In step E56, the analysis module checks for example whether the autonomous driving unit 50 is being used. If so, the driver 4 is not considered to be distracted from his driving, since the autonomous driving unit is assisting him. The method then returns to step E42.”).
Delahaye discloses a “an image acquisition assembly”, which the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “processing module for processing” would include a memory based medium attached to the processing module to include stored instructions.
Although Delahaye discloses “an emission module 30 for emitting an alarm signal.”, Delahaye does not expressly disclose outputting an alert that is audible.
Hashimoto teaches “… an information processing device, a moving body, an information processing method, and a program capable of changing a notification content to a driver depending on the degree to which the driver is aware of an object around a vehicle.”
Hashimoto expressly teaches “FIG. 13 is a hardware configuration diagram illustrating an example of a computer that implements the function of an information processing device according to the embodiment…” capable to output an alert in a case where the face of the driver cannot be detected (Refer to para [042]; “For example, the output control unit 105 also generates voice data including a warning sound or a warning message that is an alert for a collision based on the degree to which the driver is aware of an object, and supplies an output signal including the generated voice data to the output unit 106. At this time, the output control unit 105 may generate image data in which an external image captured by the image capturing device of the data acquisition unit 102 is superposed with a warning display or the like that is an alert for a collision based on the degree of awareness of the driver, and supply an output signal including the generated image data to the output unit 106. The object includes an object that is moving (moving object) and a stationary object.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delahaye by adding a processor capable to provide “… image data in which an external image captured by the image capturing device of the data acquisition unit 102 is superposed with a warning display…” as taught by Hashimoto.
The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Delahaye and Hashimoto would have been in order to enhance the situational awareness in order to “determines whether the position of the object and the direction of the driver's face are in the same direction by using the spatial information mapped.” (At para [148], Hashimoto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Delahaye and Hashimoto in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 1. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding Claim 6 (new): Delahaye a vehicle (Refer to para [039]; “FIG. 1 shows the front of a motor vehicle 1 (also called “vehicle 1” below) with an on-board device 10 for detecting the distraction of a driver 4 of the vehicle 1.”) comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (Refer to para [010]; “a processing module”) and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Refer to para [010]; “a processing module for processing the acquired image”): acquire a photographed image of a driver driving a moving object (Refer to para [008]; “an image acquisition assembly designed to acquire at least one image of a detection area located in said vehicle, said detection area comprising at least part of the driver of the vehicle,”); detect a gaze direction of the driver based on the photographed image (Refer to para [050]; “The processing module 24 is also designed to determine a gaze direction of the driver 4 when images are acquired by the two-dimensional sensor 23.”) detect a face direction of the driver based on the photographed image (Refer to para [045]; “The two-dimensional sensor 23 is designed for example to capture an image of the face of the driver 4, and in particular of his eyes.”) and determine whether a face of the driver can be detected based on the photographed image (Refer to para [048]; “The processing module 24 is designed to receive the acquired images and determine a posture of the driver 4 in the vehicle 1.”) in a case where both of the gaze direction and the face direction cannot be detected (Refer to para [075, 076 and 080]; “In this step E44, the other image is also processed in order to determine a position of the head and a gaze direction of the driver 4 (this gaze direction, as already indicated, being one example of a direction associated with the head of the driver). At the end of step E44, the processing module 24 has therefore determined the representation of the posture of the driver 4 and his gaze direction. If the gaze of the driver 4 is not oriented toward the hand located outside the permitted area, the method returns to step E42.” ) and output an alert in a case where the face of the driver cannot be detected (Refer to para [081-085]; “As in step E12, the time measurement module 28 measures the detection time for which the head of the driver remains directed toward his hand, that is to say the time for which the hand is located in the determined gaze direction. This detection time is then compared with a predetermined threshold (step E54). If the detection time is less than this predetermined threshold, the driver is not considered to be distracted and the method returns to step E42. By contrast, if the detection time is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold, the method continues with steps E56 and E58 (similar to steps E16 and E18). In these steps, the analysis module 26 determines whether the driver is in a driving condition. In particular, the driver is in a driving condition if an autonomous driving unit 50 is not being used or if the speed of the vehicle 1 is greater than a predetermined speed value. In step E56, the analysis module checks for example whether the autonomous driving unit 50 is being used. If so, the driver 4 is not considered to be distracted from his driving, since the autonomous driving unit is assisting him. The method then returns to step E42.”).
Delahaye discloses a “an image acquisition assembly”, which the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “processing module for processing” would include a memory based medium attached to the processing module to include stored instructions.
Although Delahaye discloses “an emission module 30 for emitting an alarm signal.”, Delahaye does not expressly disclose outputting an alert that is audible.
Hashimoto teaches “… an information processing device, a moving body, an information processing method, and a program capable of changing a notification content to a driver depending on the degree to which the driver is aware of an object around a vehicle.”
Hashimoto expressly teaches “FIG. 13 is a hardware configuration diagram illustrating an example of a computer that implements the function of an information processing device according to the embodiment…” capable to output an alert in a case where the face of the driver cannot be detected (Refer to para [042]; “For example, the output control unit 105 also generates voice data including a warning sound or a warning message that is an alert for a collision based on the degree to which the driver is aware of an object, and supplies an output signal including the generated voice data to the output unit 106. At this time, the output control unit 105 may generate image data in which an external image captured by the image capturing device of the data acquisition unit 102 is superposed with a warning display or the like that is an alert for a collision based on the degree of awareness of the driver, and supply an output signal including the generated image data to the output unit 106. The object includes an object that is moving (moving object) and a stationary object.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delahaye by adding a processor capable to provide “… image data in which an external image captured by the image capturing device of the data acquisition unit 102 is superposed with a warning display…” as taught by Hashimoto.
The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Delahaye and Hashimoto would have been in order to enhance the situational awareness in order to “determines whether the position of the object and the direction of the driver's face are in the same direction by using the spatial information mapped.” (At para [148], Hashimoto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Delahaye and Hashimoto in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 6. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mimar (US 20140139655 A1)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIA M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1583. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Stephen (Steve) Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
MIA M. THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
/MIA M THOMAS/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights