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 .
Claim status
2. In response to the amendments filed 02/23/2026, claims 1, 53 and 60 were amended, claims 54, 66-68 were canceled and new claims 72-75 were added. Therefore, claims 1, 53, 55-65 and 69-75 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 75 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Wherein” should be “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
5. Claims 1, 53, 55, 58-65 and 69-71 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-13, 15-20 of US Patent No. 11,738,756. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
6. Claims 56-57 and 72-75 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of US Patent No. 11,738,756. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “the one or more processors also receiving incoming data from one or more other sensing devices” and “ the one or more other sensing devices include one or more motion sensors, heart rate monitors, breathing monitors, or a combination thereof”, “wherein the one or more irregular health events are tied to one or more medical conditions, one or more behaviors, or both of the one or more users; and wherein the one or more regular events include heightened emotions; attention, or lack thereof, to road and driving conditions; the one or more users looking away from the road; driving habits; the one or more users texting and/or otherwise looking at a mobile device; or a combination thereof.”, “wherein the one or more medical conditions include epilepsy, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, aneurysm, pregnancy, narcolepsy, dehydration, or a combination thereof; and wherein the one or more behaviors include alcohol consumption, drug consumption, lack of sleep, or a combination thereof.”; “wherein the preprocessing the video data includes model identification to identify one or more models suitable for face extraction, facial recognition, or both.”; and “wherein the preprocessing the video data includes environmental analysis to reduce and/or remove one or more environmental influences from one or more frames; and wherein the environmental influences include different lighting levels, multiple individuals captured in the video data and associated individual frames, background located behind the one or more users, pose, scale, distance of the one or more users to the camera, gestures of the one or more users, or a combination thereof.” are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in claims 1 and 19 of US Patent No. 11,738,756 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
7. Claims 1, 53, 55-65 and 69-75 and are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, 6, 9 and 11-16 of US Patent No. 12,084,062. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “wherein the one or more safety protocols of the vehicle include automatically engaging driving assistance technology of a vehicle and automatically slowing the vehicle down, braking, stopping, initiating lane control, controlling acceleration, moving the vehicle to a side of a road, moving the vehicle to a nearby parking spot, moving the vehicle to the nearest emergency services location, or a combination thereof”, “the video data is received by a recording service module and associated with one or more identification data; and wherein the one or more identification data includes one or more video labels, timestamps, camera identifiers, user identifiers, or any combination thereof”, “the one or more machine learning networks include one or more convolutional neural networks (CNN), one or more Dlib machine learning algorithms, or any combination thereof”, “wherein the one or more irregular health events are tied to one or more medical conditions, one or more behaviors, or both of the one or more users; and wherein the one or more regular events include heightened emotions; attention, or lack thereof, to road and driving conditions; the one or more users looking away from the road; driving habits; the one or more users texting and/or otherwise looking at a mobile device; or a combination thereof.”, “wherein the one or more medical conditions include epilepsy, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, aneurysm, pregnancy, narcolepsy, dehydration, or a combination thereof; and wherein the one or more behaviors include alcohol consumption, drug consumption, lack of sleep, or a combination thereof.”; “wherein the preprocessing the video data includes model identification to identify one or more models suitable for face extraction, facial recognition, or both.”; and “wherein the preprocessing the video data includes environmental analysis to reduce and/or remove one or more environmental influences from one or more frames; and wherein the environmental influences include different lighting levels, multiple individuals captured in the video data and associated individual frames, background located behind the one or more users, pose, scale, distance of the one or more users to the camera, gestures of the one or more users, or a combination thereof.” are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in claims 1, 3-5, 6, 9 and 11-16 of US Patent No. 12,084,062 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Response to Remarks
8. The Applicant's remarks regarding the double patenting rejection have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks:
Claim 1: Without acquiescing and solely in the interest of expediting prosecution, Applicant has amended the claim to include one or more response protocols and further define the one or more safety protocols. As such, the amended claim includes distinguishing features that, as a whole, would patentably distinguish over U.S. Patent No. 11,738,756 and U.S. Patent No. 12,084,062 and obviate any such rejection.. Remarks, filed 23 February 2026, page 8.
Examiner’s response:
Regarding Applicant remark, U.S. Patent No. 11,738,756 discloses one or more response protocols [claim 15: wherein upon detecting the presence and/or the probability of the health event, the method includes identifying and activating one or more response protocols; see also claims 18-19] and one or more safety protocol [claim 18: safety protocols including initiating a driver assistance technology to control driving of the vehicle in which the one or more users are located, such that the vehicle drives to and reaches a safe parking destination].
Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,084,062 discloses one or more response protocols [claim 1, 5, and 15: enable one or more safety protocols of the vehicle] and one or more safety protocol [as discussed above these are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.].
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights