DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/843,334, filed on 03 September 2024.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 11-22 remain pending in the application, while claims 1-10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-22 are new.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a. “processor module” in claims 11 and 15-18
b. “driver detection module” in claim 11
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification discloses the corresponding structure for the “processor module” in at least paragraph [0033] and for the “driver detection module” in * and least paragraphs [0009] and [0042].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 recites "the driver guideline" but there is no prior recitation of the claim element. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the driver guideline. For the purpose of compact prosecution, "the driver guideline" will be interpreted as "a driver guideline".
Regarding Claim 16
Claim 16 recites "if the glance duration changes in the direction of the threshold value.". It is unclear what is meant by the glance duration changing in the direction of the threshold value because the glance duration is a measure of time, not a direction. The claim also does not provide a reference frame to define what a change in the direction is with respect to. As such, the claim is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, "if the glance duration changes in the direction of the threshold value." will be read as if omitted.".
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 22
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to transitory forms of signal transmission. The preamble of the claim recites "a computer-readable storage medium…" and the body of the claim does not provide tangible structure for the "computer-readable storage medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of the "computer-readable storage medium" encompasses non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signals per se and therefore it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not contain any additional features with physical or tangible form, therefore it is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03(I-II).
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 11
Claim 11 recites teaches a driver assistance system for a vehicle, comprising:
at least one driver detection module configured to detect a driver and to provide detection data;
at least one processor module configured to:
receive the detection data as a basis for recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by the driver away from a reference line of vision;
determine an applicable glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;
recognize a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value; and
trigger at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a processor. Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “detect a driver”, “recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by the driver away from a reference line of vision;”, “determine an applicable glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;” and “recognize a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components “driver detection module” and “processor module”. That is, other than reciting the “modules”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a passenger detecting a driver, recognizing when the driver glances away from the road, determining the duration of the driver glancing away from the road and recognizing a change in the glance duration over time after the driver glances away from the road a plurality of times. The mere nominal recitation of the “modules” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites elements of a “driver detection module” and a “processor module”. The “driver detection module” and “processor module” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are described at high level of generality and are merely computer components being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites additional steps of “provide detection data”, “receive the detection data…” and “trigger at least one vehicle function…”. The providing and receiving detection data steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering detection data for use in the “glance recognition” steps) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The “trigger at least one vehicle function…” step describes mere potential of outputting of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The vehicle function is recited at a high level of generality and the claim does not provide details on which vehicle function is controlled nor how it is controlled.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “modules” are merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim which generally link the judicial exception to a vehicle control environment, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification recites that the driver detection module and processor module are conventional computer equipment. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 12-20
Claim 12 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one vehicle function relates to an output of a driver guideline to the driver.
Claim 13 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 11,
wherein the threshold value indicates a period of time between a glance by the driver away from the reference line of vision and the triggering of the at least one vehicle function.
Claim 14 recites the driver assistance system of claim 13,
wherein the reference line of vision is an output of the driver guideline.
Claim 15 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 11,
wherein the at least one processor module is further configured to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized.
Claim 16 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 15,
wherein the at least one processor module is configured to change the threshold value from the first value to the second value if the glance duration changes in the direction of the threshold value.
Claim 17 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 15,
wherein the at least one processor module is configured to at least one of:
select the second value from a predetermined value range at random; or
select the second value on the basis of historical glance durations pertaining to the driver.
Claim 18 recites the driver assistance system according to claim 15,
wherein the at least one processor module is further configured to change the threshold value from the second value back to the first value if a retrograde change in the glance duration is recognized.
Claim 19 recites a vehicle comprising the driver assistance system according to claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the vehicle of claim 19, where the vehicle is a motor vehicle.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recites a processor. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein the threshold value indicates a period of time between a glance by the driver away from the reference line of vision and the triggering of the at least one vehicle function.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the passenger performing the above mental step, by further comparing the duration of the driver glancing away from the reference line of vision to a threshold value. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation of “change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor module”. That is, other than reciting the “processor module”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the passenger performing the above mental step, by further increasing or decreasing the threshold value when a change in the driver’s glance duration is recognized. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation of “change the threshold value from the first value to the second value if the glance duration changes in the direction of the threshold value.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor module”. That is, other than reciting the “processor module”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the passenger performing the above mental step, by further increasing or decreasing the threshold value when a change in the driver’s glance duration is in the direction of the threshold value. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitations “select the second value…” and “select the second value…”. These limitation, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor module”. That is, other than reciting the “processor module”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the passenger performing the above mental step, by further selecting a second value at random or based on historical glance durations of the driver. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation of “change the threshold value from the second value back to the first value if a retrograde change in the glance duration is recognized.”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor module”. That is, other than reciting the “processor module”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses the passenger performing the above mental step, by further changing the threshold value back to the first value a retrograde change in the glance duration is recognized. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claims 13 does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 15-18 recite an additional element of a “processor module”. The processor module does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer component being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Claims 12, 14 and 19-20 recite the additional steps of “wherein the at least one vehicle function relates to an output of a driver guideline to the driver.”, “wherein the reference line of vision is an output of the driver guideline.”, “a vehicle comprising the driver assistance system according to claim 11.” and “the vehicle of claim 19, where the vehicle is a motor vehicle.”. The steps merely describe how to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle functions are recited at a high level of generality and the claims do not provide details on which vehicle function is controlled nor how it is controlled. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “processor module” is merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional steps in the claims which generally link the judicial exception to a vehicle control environment, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 12-20 are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21
Claim 21 recites a driver assistance method for a vehicle, comprising:
recognizing, with a processor of a driver assistance system, a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision;
determining, with the processor, a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;
recognizing, with the processor, a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value; and
triggering, with the processor, at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “recognizing … a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision;”, “determining … a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;” and “recognizing … a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a passenger detecting a driver, recognizing when the driver glances away from the road, determining the duration of the driver glancing away from the road and recognizing a change in the glance duration over time after the driver glances away from the road a plurality of times. The mere nominal recitation of the “processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites an additional element of a “processor”. The processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer component being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites an additional step of “trigger at least one vehicle function…”. This step describes mere potential of outputting of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The vehicle function is recited at a high level of generality and the claim does not provide details on which vehicle function is controlled nor how it is controlled.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “processor” is merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional step in the claim which generally link the judicial exception to a vehicle control environment, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 22
Claim 22 recites a computer-readable storage medium, comprising a set of instructions configured to be executed on one or more processors and cause the one or more processors to perform acts of:
recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision;
determining a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;
recognizing a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value; and
triggering at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See the rejection above. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 22 will be analyzed under the remaining steps.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim recites the limitations of “recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision;”, “determining a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances;” and “recognizing a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a passenger detecting a driver, recognizing when the driver glances away from the road, determining the duration of the driver glancing away from the road and recognizing a change in the glance duration over time after the driver glances away from the road a plurality of times. The mere nominal recitation of the “processor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites an additional element of a “processor”. The processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer component being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
The claim recites an additional step of “trigger at least one vehicle function…”. This step describes mere potential of outputting of data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The vehicle function is recited at a high level of generality and the claim does not provide details on which vehicle function is controlled nor how it is controlled.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “processor” is merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional step in the claim which generally link the judicial exception to a vehicle control environment, the same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11, 13 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fairgrieve et al. (US 20210354703 A1 and Fairgrieve hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 11
Fairgrieve teaches a driver assistance system for a vehicle (see all Figs., especially Fig. 4; [0001] and [0009]), comprising:
at least one driver detection module configured to detect a driver and to provide detection data (see Fig. 1, camera 150; [0053 "The camera 150 is arranged to provide the image data relating to the portion of the occupant of the vehicle where the portion may comprise one or both of an upper torso and head of the occupant i.e. head and shoulders of the occupant, or only the head of the occupant. It may be desired for the image data to relate to a face of the occupant to determine a condition of the occupant. The condition may comprise a gaze direction of the occupant, wherein the gaze direction is a direction in which the occupant is looking as will be explained with reference to FIG. 3 in particular. "]);
at least one processor module (see [0032] and [0066]) configured to:
receive the detection data as a basis for recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by the driver away from a reference line of vision (see Fig. 3, NDR 330 and/or SDR 320; Fig. 4, periods 440 and/or 430; [0009], [0012], [0069 "The driving region may correspond to the PDR 310 and the non-driving region the NDR 330 examples of which are shown in FIG. 3. In some embodiments, the GDURM 250 is arranged to determine the gaze-duration measure indicative of the respective durations of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively."], [0071 "Also illustrated in FIG. 4 are ... a period of time 430 for which the gaze is directed to one of the one or more SDRs 320, and periods 440 to the NDR 330."], [0073 "After a period of time the occupant disengages from fully observing the vehicle's situation by having their gaze directed to the PDR 310, and directs their gaze towards the NDR 330, as in period 440 starting at t1. The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0077]);
determine an applicable glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances (see Fig. 4, periods 440 and x-axis "t"; [0009 "...the control system being arranged to determine a gaze-duration measure indicative of a duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the driving region and the non-driving region respectively. ], [0012], [0069 "The GDURM 250 may employ a sliding window such that the gaze-duration measure is indicative of a proportion of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively, within a period of time corresponding to the sliding window."], [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0078]);
recognize a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value (see Fig. 4, all, especially "threshold" and flag 460; [0011], [0069], [0073 "In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0076]-[0078]); and
trigger at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration (see Fig. 7, all; [0011], [0057], [0073 "When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0090 "In some embodiments, the AM 280 is configured to control one or both of the output means 293, 295 to output the notification signal 213 and control signal 215 in dependence on both the gaze-duration signal 255 indicative of the gaze-duration measure and the gaze-distance signal 265 indicative of the gaze distance measure reaching respective predetermined thresholds."]-[0099]).
Regarding Claim 13
Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system according to claim 11 (as discussed above in claim 11),
wherein the threshold value indicates a period of time between a glance by the driver away from the reference line of vision and the triggering of the at least one vehicle function (see Fig. 4, "threshold" and flag 460; [0011 "Optionally the control system is configured to output the signal when the gaze-duration measure reaches a predetermined threshold. Advantageously action is taken when the gaze-duration measure reaches the threshold."], [0073 "In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding Claim 19
Fairgrieve teaches a vehicle (see Fig. 8, all; [0005]-[0006] and [0100]) comprising the driver assistance system according to claim 11 (as discussed above in claim 11).
Regarding Claim 20
Fairgrieve teaches the vehicle of claim 19 (as discussed above in claim 19), where the vehicle is a motor vehicle (see Fig. 8, all; [0005]-[0006] and [0100]).
Regarding Claim 21
Fairgrieve teaches a driver assistance method for a vehicle (see all Figs., especially Fig. 4; [0001], [0009] and [0108]), comprising:
recognizing, with a processor of a driver assistance system, a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision (see Fig. 3, NDR 330 and/or SDR 320; Fig. 4, periods 440 and/or 430; [0009], [0012], [0069 "The driving region may correspond to the PDR 310 and the non-driving region the NDR 330 examples of which are shown in FIG. 3. In some embodiments, the GDURM 250 is arranged to determine the gaze-duration measure indicative of the respective durations of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively."], [0071 "Also illustrated in FIG. 4 are ... a period of time 430 for which the gaze is directed to one of the one or more SDRs 320, and periods 440 to the NDR 330."], [0073 "After a period of time the occupant disengages from fully observing the vehicle's situation by having their gaze directed to the PDR 310, and directs their gaze towards the NDR 330, as in period 440 starting at t1. The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0077]);
determining, with the processor, a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances (see Fig. 4, periods 440 and x-axis "t"; [0009 "...the control system being arranged to determine a gaze-duration measure indicative of a duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the driving region and the non-driving region respectively. ], [0012], [0069 "The GDURM 250 may employ a sliding window such that the gaze-duration measure is indicative of a proportion of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively, within a period of time corresponding to the sliding window."], [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0078]);
recognizing, with the processor, a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value (see Fig. 4, all, especially "threshold" and flag 460; [0011], [0069], [0073 "In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0076]-[0078]); and
triggering, with the processor, at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration (see Fig. 7, all; [0011], [0057], [0073 "When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0090 "In some embodiments, the AM 280 is configured to control one or both of the output means 293, 295 to output the notification signal 213 and control signal 215 in dependence on both the gaze-duration signal 255 indicative of the gaze-duration measure and the gaze-distance signal 265 indicative of the gaze distance measure reaching respective predetermined thresholds."]-[0099]).
Regarding Claim 22
Fairgrieve teaches a computer-readable storage medium, comprising a set of instructions configured to be executed on one or more processors (see all Figs., especially Fig. 4; [0001], [0009] and [0038]-[0039]) and cause the one or more processors to perform acts of:
recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by a driver away from a reference line of vision (see Fig. 3, NDR 330 and/or SDR 320; Fig. 4, periods 440 and/or 430; [0009], [0012], [0069 "The driving region may correspond to the PDR 310 and the non-driving region the NDR 330 examples of which are shown in FIG. 3. In some embodiments, the GDURM 250 is arranged to determine the gaze-duration measure indicative of the respective durations of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively."], [0071 "Also illustrated in FIG. 4 are ... a period of time 430 for which the gaze is directed to one of the one or more SDRs 320, and periods 440 to the NDR 330."], [0073 "After a period of time the occupant disengages from fully observing the vehicle's situation by having their gaze directed to the PDR 310, and directs their gaze towards the NDR 330, as in period 440 starting at t1. The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0077]);
determining a glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances (see Fig. 4, periods 440 and x-axis "t"; [0009 "...the control system being arranged to determine a gaze-duration measure indicative of a duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the driving region and the non-driving region respectively. ], [0012], [0069 "The GDURM 250 may employ a sliding window such that the gaze-duration measure is indicative of a proportion of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed to the PDR 310, SDR 320 and NDR 330, respectively, within a period of time corresponding to the sliding window."], [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410."] and [0076]-[0078]);
recognizing a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value (see Fig. 4, all, especially "threshold" and flag 460; [0011], [0069], [0073 "In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0076]-[0078]); and
triggering at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration (see Fig. 7, all; [0011], [0057], [0073 "When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."] and [0090 "In some embodiments, the AM 280 is configured to control one or both of the output means 293, 295 to output the notification signal 213 and control signal 215 in dependence on both the gaze-duration signal 255 indicative of the gaze-duration measure and the gaze-distance signal 265 indicative of the gaze distance measure reaching respective predetermined thresholds."]-[0099]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 20230106487 A1 and Alexander hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 12
Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system according to claim 11 (as discussed above in claim 11),
Fairgrieve further teaches wherein the at least one vehicle function relates to an output guideline to the driver (see Fig. 7, all; [0011], [0057 "The controller 210 comprises an output means 293 for outputting a notification signal 213 to the notification means 240. The notification signal 213 is indicative of one or more of visual, audible or haptic notification to be output by the notification means 240. The notification means 240 may comprise one or more of one or more visual output devices, such as for outputting a visual signal or indication to the occupant, one or more audible output devices for outputting an audible signal or indication to the occupant, and one or more haptic output devices for outputting a haptic notification or indication to the occupant."], [0073] and [0090]-[0099]).
Although it may be inherent and/or implied, Fairgrieve does not explicitly teach the vehicle function relating to and output of a driver guideline to the driver.
Alexander teaches a driver assistance system for a vehicle (see all Figs.; [0001] and [0004]), comprising:
at least one driver detection module configured to detect a driver and to provide detection data (see [0004], [0019 "In an example, the attention monitor may perform eye tracking using a camera of the driver monitoring system."] and [0029]);
at least one processor module (see [0068]) configured to:
receive the detection data as a basis for recognizing a multiplicity of individual glances by the driver away from a reference line of vision (see Fig. 5, all; [0004 "The control circuit may be configured to (i) detect whether an attention state of a driver is in an attentive state or an inattentive state in response to one or more of the plurality of sensor signals from the vehicle platform during a first window having a first duration, (ii) assess whether the driver is sufficiently attentive by monitoring the one or more of the plurality of sensor signals from the vehicle platform and determining whether changes in the attention state of the driver during a second window having a second duration that is longer than the first duration exceeds a threshold..."], [0029]-[0030], [0045]-[0046] and [0048 "If at any time, the glance distribution changes from the glance distribution that provides a desired controllability for a particular population (e.g., the curve 302) to a glance distribution that does not provide the desired controllability for the particular population (e.g., the curve 304), the HMIM 104 may assert control and indicate that the driver is “insufficiently attentive” even if the attention monitor 102 at the instant says the driver is aware."]-[0049]);
determine an applicable glance duration for each individual glance of the multiplicity of individual glances (see Fig. 5, all; [0004], [0029]-[0030], [0031], [0046 " In an example, the attention monitor 102 may observe driver glance behavior over a short duration of time to determine an awareness level. In an example, if over a short period of time (e.g., a few seconds) the driver is eyes-off-road 50% of the time or over a longer period of time (e.g., 4-5 times as long as the short period) the driver is eyes-off-road 30% of the time, the attention monitor 102 may indicate the driver is not aware."] and [0048 "If at any time, the glance distribution changes from the glance distribution that provides a desired controllability for a particular population (e.g., the curve 302) to a glance distribution that does not provide the desired controllability for the particular population (e.g., the curve 304), the HMIM 104 may assert control and indicate that the driver is “insufficiently attentive” even if the attention monitor 102 at the instant says the driver is aware."]);
recognize a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value (see Fig. 5, all; [0004 "...(ii) assess whether the driver is sufficiently attentive by monitoring the one or more of the plurality of sensor signals from the vehicle platform and determining whether changes in the attention state of the driver during a second window having a second duration that is longer than the first duration exceeds a threshold, and (iii) when the threshold is exceeded, transition operation of the vehicle to the driver and safely discontinue an automation system function of the vehicle."], [0029]-[0030"], [0031], [0035], [0046 " In an example, the attention monitor 102 may observe driver glance behavior over a short duration of time to determine an awareness level. In an example, if over a short period of time (e.g., a few seconds) the driver is eyes-off-road 50% of the time or over a longer period of time (e.g., 4-5 times as long as the short period) the driver is eyes-off-road 30% of the time, the attention monitor 102 may indicate the driver is not aware."], [0048 "If at any time, the glance distribution changes from the glance distribution that provides a desired controllability for a particular population (e.g., the curve 302) to a glance distribution that does not provide the desired controllability for the particular population (e.g., the curve 304), the HMIM 104 may assert control and indicate that the driver is “insufficiently attentive” even if the attention monitor 102 at the instant says the driver is aware."]-[0049] and [0063]); and
trigger at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration (see Figs. 7-13, all; [0030 "In an example, the attention monitor 102 may observe driver glance behavior 108 over a short duration of time window 110 to determine an awareness level. In an example, if over the short period of time (e.g., a few seconds) the driver is eyes-off-road 50% of the time or over a longer period of time (e.g., 4-5 times as long as the short period) the driver is eyes-off-road 30% of the time, the attention monitor 102 may indicate the driver is not aware. In an example, the attention monitor 102 may generate warnings at three different levels: temporarily unaware, unaware, out of the loop."], [0046]-[0047] and [0051]-[0064]);
wherein the at least one vehicle function relates to an output of a driver guideline to the driver (see Figs. 7-13, all, especially "the HMI alerts the driver to pay attention to the road"; [0030 "...the attention monitor 102 may indicate the driver is not aware. In an example, the attention monitor 102 may generate warnings at three different levels: temporarily unaware, unaware, out of the loop. In an example, the number of warnings may include, but are not limited to, auditory and visual reminders, haptic reminder (e.g., seat vibration), hands on, reduced propulsion, take over request, and slow into a safe stop."], [0047] and [0052 "The HMI 96 alerts the driver to pay attention to the road."]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the driver assistance system of Fairgrieve to trigger the at least one vehicle function relating to an output of a driver guideline to the driver, as taught by Alexander, in order to alert the driver to pay attention to the road when they are inattentive.
Regarding Claim 14
Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system of claim 13 (as discussed above in claim 13),
Fairgrieve is silent regarding wherein the reference line of vision is an output of a driver guideline.
Alexander teaches wherein the reference line of vision is an output of a driver guideline (see Figs. 7-13, all, especially "the HMI alerts the driver to pay attention to the road"; [0030], [0047] and [0052 "The HMI 96 alerts the driver to pay attention to the road."]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the driver assistance system of Fairgrieve to output the reference line of vision to the driver, as taught by Alexander, in order to alert the driver to pay attention to the road when they are inattentive.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairgrieve as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kruscha et al. (EP 2284057 A2 and Kruscha hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 15
Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system according to claim 11 (as discussed above in claim 11),
Fairgrieve further teaches wherein the at least one processor module is further configured to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized (see Fig. 4, all, especially the difference between the "threshold" and the duration measure 410; [0071 "FIG. 4 illustrates a value of the gaze-duration measure 410 over time t according to an embodiment of the invention."] and [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... The gaze-duration measure 410 may be increased and decreased by the GDRUM 250 at a unit value for each predetermined period of time such as 100 ms, 500 ms, for example. The rate of increase and decrease may differ in the respective directions in some embodiments. In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."]. As the gaze-duration measure 410 increases, the difference between Fairgrieve's "threshold value" and the current gaze-duration measure 410 decreases. Therefore, the threshold value is changed from a first value to a second value because the remaining difference between the current gaze-duration measure 410 and the "threshold value" is reduced under the interpretation that said difference corresponds to the claimed first/second threshold value.).
For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Fairgrieve is silent regarding wherein the at least one processor module is further configured to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized.", Kruscha teaches the claim limitation.
That is, Kruscha teaches a driver assistance system for a vehicle (see [0012]; see the corresponding paragraphs in the attached reference EP_2284057_A2), comprising:
at least one driver detection module configured to detect a driver and to provide detection data (see [0024 "In this case, the device according to the invention according to FIG. 1 comprises a unit 1 for detecting the viewing direction of the driver. Such a viewing direction detection device 1 can be formed, for example, by an interior camera. The signal of the viewing direction detection unit 1 reaches a unit 2 for determining a first time duration during which the driver turns his gaze away from the road. "]);
at least one processor module (see [0036], the processor module is inherent) configured to:
receive the detection data as a basis for recognizing an individual glance by the driver away from a reference line of vision (see [0012 "...detecting the current direction of gaze of the driver by a gaze detection device, determining the time duration during which the driver is not looking at the road from the current viewing direction;..."], [0017] and [0024]-[0025]);
determine an applicable glance duration for the glance (see [0012 "...determining the time duration during which the driver is not looking at the road from the current viewing direction;…"], [0017] and [0025]);
recognize a change in the glance duration over time and with regard to a threshold value (see [0012 "...adapting the parameter or parameters of the driver assistance system if the ascertained time duration exceeds a predefined critical time value."]-[0014], [0017] and [0025]-[0026]); and
trigger at least one vehicle function on the basis of the recognized change in the glance duration (see [0012 "...adapting the parameter or parameters of the driver assistance system if the ascertained time duration exceeds a predefined critical time value."], [0016]-[0017] and [0026]);
wherein the at least one processor module is further configured to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized (see [0014 "Using the example of the vehicle speed, the critical time value can be selected, for example, via a look-up table such that the critical time value is inversely proportional to the vehicle speed. In other words, the greater the vehicle speed, the smaller the critical time value is selected. The same applies to environmental parameters."], [0019 "Further preferably, the device has a unit for adapting the critical time value to one or more vehicle parameters and/or one or more parameters of the vehicle environment."],
[0012 "…adapting the parameter or parameters of the driver assistance system if the ascertained time duration exceeds a predefined critical time value."], [0017], [0021 "Preferably, the gaze detector of the lane keeping assist system determines whether the driver has not directed gaze to the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value, and the lane keeping assist system reduces the speed of the vehicle when the driver has not directed gaze to either the road or the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value."] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the driver assistance system of Fairgrieve to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, which is different than the first value, when the change in the glance duration is recognized, as taught by Kruscha, in order to adjust the threshold value according to an adjusted vehicle speed as a result of the driver being inattentive.
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system according to claim 15 (as discussed above in claim 15),
Fairgrieve further teaches wherein the at least one processor module is configured to change the threshold value from the first value to the second value (see Fig. 4, all, especially the difference between the "threshold" and the duration measure 410; [0071 "FIG. 4 illustrates a value of the gaze-duration measure 410 over time t according to an embodiment of the invention."] and [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... The gaze-duration measure 410 may be increased and decreased by the GDRUM 250 at a unit value for each predetermined period of time such as 100 ms, 500 ms, for example. The rate of increase and decrease may differ in the respective directions in some embodiments. In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."]. As the gaze-duration measure 410 increases, the difference between Fairgrieve's "threshold value" and the current gaze-duration measure 410 decreases. Therefore, the threshold value is changed from a first value to a second value because the remaining difference between the current gaze-duration measure 410 and the "threshold value" is reduced under the interpretation that said difference corresponds to the claimed first/second threshold value.).
For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Fairgrieve is silent regarding wherein the at least one processor module is configured to change the threshold value from the first value to the second value.", Kruscha teaches the claim limitation.
That is, Kruscha teaches wherein the at least one processor module is configured to change the threshold value from the first value to the second value (see [0014 "Using the example of the vehicle speed, the critical time value can be selected, for example, via a look-up table such that the critical time value is inversely proportional to the vehicle speed. In other words, the greater the vehicle speed, the smaller the critical time value is selected. The same applies to environmental parameters."], [0019 "Further preferably, the device has a unit for adapting the critical time value to one or more vehicle parameters and/or one or more parameters of the vehicle environment."],
[0012 "…adapting the parameter or parameters of the driver assistance system if the ascertained time duration exceeds a predefined critical time value."], [0017], [0021 "Preferably, the gaze detector of the lane keeping assist system determines whether the driver has not directed gaze to the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value, and the lane keeping assist system reduces the speed of the vehicle when the driver has not directed gaze to either the road or the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value."] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the driver assistance system of Fairgrieve to change the threshold value from a first value to a second value, as taught by Kruscha, in order to adjust the threshold value according to an adjusted vehicle speed as a result of the driver being inattentive.
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Fairgrieve teaches the driver assistance system according to claim 15 (as discussed above in claim 15),
Fairgrieve further teaches wherein the at least one processor module is configured to:
select the second value on the basis of historical glance durations pertaining to the driver (see Fig. 4, all, especially the difference between the "threshold" and the duration measure 410; [0071 "FIG. 4 illustrates a value of the gaze-duration measure 410 over time t according to an embodiment of the invention."] and [0073 "The GDRUM 250 is arranged to update the gaze-duration measure 410 in an opposing direction to during period 420 which is an increasing, in this example, direction i.e. to increase the value of the gaze-duration measure 410 for the duration of time for which the occupant's gaze is directed towards the NDR 330 ... The gaze-duration measure 410 may be increased and decreased by the GDRUM 250 at a unit value for each predetermined period of time such as 100 ms, 500 ms, for example. The rate of increase and decrease may differ in the respective directions in some embodiments. In the period of time beginning at t3 the occupant's gaze is again directed to the NDR 330 and the GDURM 250 again increases the gaze-duration measure 410. When the gaze-duration measure reaches a threshold value, which may be a maximum value which the gaze-duration measure 410 is able to adopt, the GDURM 250 outputs a gaze-duration signal 255 to the AM 280 indicative of the gaze-duration measure reaching the threshold as indicated by flag symbol 460 in FIG. 4."]. As the gaze-duration measure 410 increases, the difference between Fairgrieve's "threshold value" and the current gaze-duration measure 410 decreases. Therefore, the threshold value is changed from a first value to a second value because the remaining difference between the current gaze-duration measure 410 and the "threshold value" is reduced under the interpretation that said difference corresponds to the claimed first/second threshold value).
For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Fairgrieve is silent regarding select the second value from a predetermined value range at random; or select the second value on the basis of historical glance durations pertaining to the driver.", Kruscha teaches the claim limitation. That is, Kruscha teaches wherein the at least one processor module is configured to:
select the second value on the basis of historical glance durations pertaining to the driver (see [0014 "Using the example of the vehicle speed, the critical time value can be selected, for example, via a look-up table such that the critical time value is inversely proportional to the vehicle speed. In other words, the greater the vehicle speed, the smaller the critical time value is selected. The same applies to environmental parameters."], [0019 "Further preferably, the device has a unit for adapting the critical time value to one or more vehicle parameters and/or one or more parameters of the vehicle environment."],
[0012 "…adapting the parameter or parameters of the driver assistance system if the ascertained time duration exceeds a predefined critical time value."], [0017], [0021 "Preferably, the gaze detector of the lane keeping assist system determines whether the driver has not directed gaze to the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value, and the lane keeping assist system reduces the speed of the vehicle when the driver has not directed gaze to either the road or the vehicle indicators beyond the critical time value."] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the driver assistance system of modified Fairgrieve to select the second threshold value on the basis of historical glance durations pertaining to the driver, as taught by Kruscha, in order to adjust the threshold value according to an adjusted vehicle speed as a result of the driver being inattentive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656