DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This communication is a Final Office Action, in response to the communication received on 04/03/2026. Claims 1, 11,12 and 14 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled and claim 21 is a newly added claim. Therefore, Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Applicants’ amendments with respect to claims 1 and 14 are sufficient to overcome the rejections set forth in the previous Office Action for being directed toward non-statutory subject matter. The examiner withdraws the rejections.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection which has been necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-8, 11 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. ( USP 8,527,146) in view of Myers et al. (USP 2018/0074495).
As Per Claim 1, Jackson et al. ( Jackson) teaches, an apparatus, (On Board computer 104, Figs. 2, 3) comprising: at least one memory (via memory 312, Fig.3); and at least one processor ( via controller 310, Fig.3) coupled to the at least one memory ( Fig.3) and configured to: obtain, from a plurality of sensors, ( via Device interface 370, col.8, lines 25-45,Fig.3) sensor data from at least an interior of a vehicle, the sensor data corresponding to a first occupant ( owner driver owner, or unrestricted driver) of the vehicle and a second occupant (passenger other adults, adult children, sibling, restricted driver) of the vehicle,( via sensors 362, camera 364 etc. col.8, lines 35-58), wherein a first priority ( higher priority, unrestricted authority) of the first occupant ( driver) ( i.e., driving operation of the vehicle to the destination)
is greater than a second priority (restricted authority) of the second occupant (passenger) ( i.e., passenger sitting inside the vehicle not effecting the vehicle operation); (Col.14, line 33—Col.15, line 65)( Thus, the owner (or the spouse of the owner being registered as an owner) have permanent right, higher authority (i.e., higher priority) than the restricted driver (other occupant of the vehicle).
However, Jackson does not explicitly teach, process the sensor data to determine an adjustment of, the second priority of the second occupant to an updated priority, wherein the updated priority of the second occupant is greater than the first priority of the first occupant; determine at least one vehicle operation of the vehicle to perform based on the sensor data and the updated priority; and output an indication of the at least one vehicle operation.
In an analogous Art, Myers et al. (Myers) discloses, a passenger tracking system and method, wherein a vehicle control system 100 being equipped with passenger authentication and monitoring module 104,([0020]), wherein, process the sensor data to determine an adjustment of ( via passenger authentication and monitoring module104, using passenger analysis module 214, blood alcohol sensor 218, odor sensor 220, pulse monitor etc. for identifying passenger activities and behaviors to identify impaired passenger, determining impaired passenger due to alcohol, drug or health condition, [0028])[0045-0046]), the second priority of the second occupant to an updated priority ( via the second priority of providing comfort to passenger changed to higher(updated) priority to “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]), wherein the updated priority of the second occupant is greater than the first priority of the first occupant; ( the priority of driving the impaired passenger to “nearest hospital or other medical facility”[0045] being greater priority than the driver’s priority of driving to destination); determine at least one vehicle operation of the vehicle to perform based on the sensor data and the updated priority; (via “If an impaired passenger is detected 618, method 600 queries 620 the impaired passenger via a voice command. For example, the passenger may be asked how they are feeling or asked a simple question such as “What is your name?” If the passenger does not respond 622 to the query, the vehicle drives 624 the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility.”, [0045]), and output (via display 122 or speaker 124 notifying the driver of the passenger condition, [0022]), an indication of the at least one vehicle operation (via “the automated driving/assistance system 102 is instructed to drive in a smooth manner to minimize the likelihood of the passenger getting sick in the vehicle.”[0028]), Figs. 1,2 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jackson and Myers before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jackson, to include the teachings (passenger authentication and monitoring module 104, display, speaker etc.) of Myers and configure with the system of Jackson in order to , when passenger being identified with impaired condition, adjusting the priority of vehicle operational control and rerouting the vehicle to nearest hospital and instructing automated driving system to drive in a smooth manner(. [0028]). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to rushing passenger to the nearest hospital and driving in a smooth manner to minimize the likelihood of the passenger getting sick in the vehicle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the occupant in case of emergency).
As per Claim 2, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the first priority of the first occupant and the second priority of the second occupant are on at least one of a vehicle ownership status for the first occupant or a guest status for the second occupant (Jackson : col.14, lines 25-52).
As per Claim 3, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to adjust the second priority of the second occupant based on a difference between a first occupant status of the second occupant and a desired status of the second occupant (Myers: via upon identification of impaired passenger, the second priority of providing comfort to passenger being changed to higher priority of “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]), and driver’s apriority changed to driving the vehicle to the nearest hospital rather going to the destination, [0028], [0045-0046], [0020]). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Claim 4 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
As per Claim 5, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, an occupant status of the second occupant; wherein the second priority of the second occupant is adjusted to the updated priority based on the occupant status of the second occupant (Myers: via upon identification of impaired passenger, the second priority of providing comfort to passenger being changed to higher priority of “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]), and driver’s apriority changed to driving the vehicle to the nearest hospital rather going to the destination, [0028], [0045-0046], [0020]). (See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 6, Jackson as modified by Wilson teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Jackson in view of Wilson teaches, wherein, to determine the occupant status of the second occupant, the at least one processor is configured to determine at least one of a temperature comfort level, a riding anxiety level ( passenger distress,), a safety level, a health level (impaired passenger with health problem, a possessions status, or an activity of the second occupant. ( Myers: [0028])[0045-0046]). (See
claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 7, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a first sensor of a first type ( Jackson : ( via Device interface 370, being capable of identifying both driver and passenger col.8, lines 25-45,Fig.3).
and a second sensor of a second type ((Myers : via Passenger analysis module 214, blood alcohol sensor 218, odor sensor 220) [0028], [0045-0046]), Figs.1,2).
(See claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 8, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the first sensor of the first type is a camera ( Jackson: via Device interface 370 includes a camera 364, col.8, lines 25-45,Fig.3) and the second sensor of the second type is an audio sensor. ( Jackson: via Microphone 322, capturing sound (voice command) and employed by the onboard computer 104 to input which seats are occupied by which drivers/passengers , Col.8, lines 4-25).
As per Claim 11, Jackson as modified by Wilson teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Wilson teaches, wherein the indication includes at least one of a displayed indication or an audio output (Jackson : display 328, speaker 326, microphone 322, a touch screen 318, Col.8, lines 4-15).
As Per Claim 14, Jackson et al. ( Jackson) teaches, a method, (On Board computer 104, of a vehicle Figs. 2, 3) comprising: obtaining, from a plurality of sensors, ( via Device interface 370, col.8, lines 25-45,Fig.3), sensor data from at least an interior of a vehicle the sensor data corresponding to a first occupant of the vehicle ( owner driver owner, or unrestricted driver) and a second occupant of the vehicle, (passenger other adults, adult children, sibling, restricted driver) ( via sensors 362, camera 364 etc. col.8, lines 35-58 ), wherein a first priority ( higher priority, unrestricted authority) of the first occupant (driver) ) ( i.e., driving operation of the vehicle to the destination) is greater than a second priority (restricted authority) of the second occupant; ( passenger) ( i.e., passenger sitting inside the vehicle not effecting the vehicle operation); (Col.14, line 33—Col.15, line 65)( Thus, the owner (or the spouse of the owner being registered as an owner) have permanent right, higher authority (i.e., higher priority) than the restricted driver (other occupant of the vehicle).
However, Jackson does not explicitly teach, processing the sensor data to determine an adjustment of, the second priority of the second occupant to an updated priority, wherein the updated priority of the second occupant is greater than the first priority of the first occupant; determining at least one vehicle operation of the vehicle to perform based on the sensor data and the updated priority; and outputting an indication of the at least one vehicle operation.
In a related field of Art, Myers et al. (Myers) discloses, a passenger tracking system and method, wherein a vehicle control system 100 being equipped with passenger authentication and monitoring module 104,([0020]), wherein, processing the sensor data to determine an adjustment of ( via passenger authentication and monitoring module104, using passenger analysis module 214, blood alcohol sensor 218, odor sensor 220, pulse monitor etc. for identifying passenger activities and behaviors to identify impaired passenger, determining impaired passenger due to alcohol, drug or health condition, [0028])[0045-0046]), the second priority of the second occupant to an updated priority ( via the second priority of providing comfort to passenger changed to higher(updated) priority to “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]),
wherein the updated priority of the second occupant is greater than the first priority of the first occupant;( the priority of driving the impaired passenger to “nearest hospital or other medical facility”[0045] being greater priority than the driver’s priority of driving to destination); determining at least one vehicle operation of the vehicle to perform based on the sensor data and the updated priority; (via “If an impaired passenger is detected 618, method 600 queries 620 the impaired passenger via a voice command. For example, the passenger may be asked how they are feeling or asked a simple question such as “What is your name?” If the passenger does not respond 622 to the query, the vehicle drives 624 the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility.”, [0045]); and outputting (via display 122 or speaker 124 notifying the driver of the passenger condition, [0022]), an indication of the at least one vehicle operation (via “the automated driving/assistance system 102 is instructed to drive in a smooth manner to minimize the likelihood of the passenger getting sick in the vehicle.”[0028]), Figs. 1,2 6A-6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jackson and Myers before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jackson, to include the teachings (passenger authentication and monitoring module 104, display, speaker etc.)
of Myers and configure with the system of Jackson in order to , when passenger being identified with impaired condition, adjusting the priority of vehicle operational control and rerouting the vehicle to nearest hospital and instructing the automated driving system to drive in a smooth manner(. [0028]). Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to rushing passenger to the nearest hospital and driving in a smooth manner to minimize the likelihood of the passenger getting sick in the vehicle (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the occupant in case of emergency).
As per Claim 15, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the first priority of the first occupant and the second priority of the second occupant are on at least one of a vehicle ownership status for the first occupant or a guest status for the second occupant (Jackson : col.14, lines 25-52).
As per Claim 16, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein adjusting the second priority of the second occupant is based on a difference between a first occupant status of the second occupant and a desired status of the second occupant (Myers: via upon identification of impaired passenger, the second priority of providing comfort to passenger being changed to higher priority of “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]), and driver’s apriority changed to driving the vehicle to the nearest hospital rather going to the destination, [0028], [0045-0046], [0020]). (See claim 14 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
Claim 17 is being rejected using the same rationale as claim 16.
As per Claim 18, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, determining, based on the sensor data, an occupant status of the second occupant; wherein the second priority of the second occupant is adjusted to the updated priority based on the occupant status of the second occupant (Myers: via upon identification of impaired passenger, the second priority of providing comfort to passenger being changed to higher priority of “driving the passenger to the nearest hospital or other medical facility” for medical emergency [0045]), and driver’s apriority changed to driving the vehicle to the nearest hospital rather going to the destination, [0028], [0045-0046], [0020]). (See claim 14 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 19, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 18. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein determining the occupant status of the second occupant includes determining at least one of a temperature comfort level, a riding anxiety level, (passenger distress,), a safety level, a health level, (impaired passenger with health problem), a possessions status, or an activity of the second occupant ( Myers: [0028])[0045-0046]). (See claim 14 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 20, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the plurality of sensors include at least a first sensor of a first type ( Jackson : ( via Device interface 370, being capable of identifying both driver and passenger col.8, lines 25-45,Fig.3).
and a second sensor of a second type ((Myers : via Passenger analysis module 214, blood alcohol sensor 218, odor sensor 220) [0028], [0045-0046]), Figs.1,2). (See claim 14 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
As per Claim 21, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 14. However, Jackson in view of Myers teaches, wherein the indication includes at least one of a displayed indication, an audio output, or a signal causing a change in a state of the at least one vehicle operation. (Myers: [0022]). (See claim 14 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.).
7. Claims 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (USP 8,527,146) in view of Myers et al. (USP 2018/0074495) in view of Akira et al. (JP-2003072416A).
As per Claim 9, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers does not explicitly teach, wherein the sensor data further comprises sensor data from an exterior of the vehicle, the sensor data from the exterior of the vehicle indicating an additional vehicle driving in an adjacent lane, and wherein the at least one vehicle operation comprises a lane change.
In a related field of art, Akira et al. (Akira) teaches, vehicular travel control device , wherein, wherein the sensor data further comprises sensor data from an exterior of the vehicle, ( via an object of inter-vehicle distance control in a forward vehicle detected by the radar device by the control means.”, [0006]). the sensor data from the exterior of the vehicle indicating an additional vehicle driving in an adjacent lane, and wherein the at least one vehicle operation comprises a lane change ( via detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation, See Abstract, Page 3, 2nd para –Page 5, 1st para, page 10, 1st para –Page 13, 1st para),Figs 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jackson and Myers and Akira before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jackson, to include the teachings ( the vehicle control device) of Akira and configure with the system of Jackson in order to , when detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle operation by accelerating or decelerating own vehicle or overtaking adjacent vehicle, to avoid having a vehicle traveling in adjacent lane, to ease occupants feeling (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the occupant during vehicle navigation).
As per Claim 12, Jackson as modified by Myers teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers does not explicitly teach, wherein the indication is associated with a change in a state of the at least one vehicle operation.
In a related field of art, Akira et al. (Akira) teaches, vehicular travel control device , wherein the indication is associated with a change in a state of the at least one vehicle operation. ( via detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation, See Abstract, Page 3, 2nd para –Page 5, 1st para, page 10, 1st para –Page 13, 1st para),Figs 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jackson and Myers and Akira before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jackson, to include the teachings (the vehicle control device) of Akira and configure with the system of Jackson in order to ,
when detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle operation by accelerating or decelerating own vehicle or overtaking adjacent vehicle, to avoid having a vehicle traveling in adjacent lane, to ease occupants feeling (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the occupant during vehicle navigation).
As per Claim 13, Jackson as modified by Myers and Akira teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Jackson in view of Myers and Akira teaches, wherein the change in the state of the at least one vehicle operation includes at least one of a lane adjustment of the vehicle, a change in speed of the vehicle, a change in a rate of acceleration of the vehicle, or a change in distance of the vehicle relative to an additional vehicle. (Akira : via detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation, See Abstract, Page 3, 2nd para –Page 5, 1st para, page 10, 1st para –Page 13, 1st para), Figs 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jackson and Myers and Akira before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Jackson, to include the teachings (the vehicle control device) of Akira and configure with the system of Jackson in order to , when detecting a vehicle in an adjacent lane, driver feels uneasy, vehicle control means controlling vehicle operation by executing acceleration/ deceleration or overtaking operation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to control vehicle operation by accelerating or decelerating own vehicle or overtaking adjacent vehicle, to avoid having a vehicle traveling in adjacent lane, to ease occupants feeling (i.e., an added safety feature to enhance safety of the occupant during vehicle navigation).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666a
Prosecution Insights