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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 3/16/2026. Claim(s) 31-50 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting rejections of the most recent Office action have been removed due to Applicant’s timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321, filed on 3/16/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026, pg(s). 7, in regards to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, pg(s). 7,
“Nothing in Anderson discloses, e.g., retrieving data indicating that an occupant of a vehicle experienced discomfort when the vehicle performed a vehicle operation on a specific terrain at a geographic location and modifying vehicle operation to avoid performing the vehicle operation on the specific terrain at the geographic location, as recited in amended independent claims 31 and 41, as amended.
Anderson describes using suspension systems in a vehicle to mitigate motion sickness. See Anderson, abstract. Anderson also discusses storing events associated with motion sickness at a particular location for vehicles. See Id. at [0155-0156]. Anderson's mitigating motion sickness at a particular location does not amount to, e.g., causing a modification of an operating parameter of the vehicle to avoid performing a vehicle operation on a specific terrain.”
As stated below in the 35 USC 102 section of this Office action, Anderson anticipates amended claims 31 and 41. Anderson discloses retrieving data (“physiological parameters and/or direct inputs from the occupant”, [0162]) indicating that an occupant of a vehicle experienced discomfort when the vehicle performed a vehicle operation (“operational conditions”, [0127]) on a specific terrain (“road surface may include regular height variations”, [0105], see also “surface roughness”, [0136]) at a geographic location and modifying vehicle operation to avoid performing the vehicle operation on the specific terrain at the geographic location (“the vehicle may either change the planned route”, [0128], “The vehicle or occupants may decide to avoid such identified routes in an attempt to reduce vehicle occupant discomfort occurrence.”, [0129]). Thus, Anderson discloses the amended limitations of claims 31 and 41.
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.
Claim(s) 31-34, 36-37, 39-44, 46-47, 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 20240181827 A1).
Regarding claim 41, and similarly claim 31, Anderson teaches A system comprising:
control circuitry (“controller”, [0105]) configured to:
determine a geographic location of a vehicle (“the controller may also accept location information from a global positioning system (GPS) or other location based device to determine a location of the vehicle.”, [0103]);
processing circuitry (“vehicle and/or suspension controller”, [0104]) configured to:
retrieve historical physiological data (“occupant input”, [0129]) of at least one occupant of at least one other vehicle when the at least one vehicle performed a vehicle operation on a specific terrain at the geographic location, wherein the historical physiological data indicates that the at least one occupant experienced physiological discomfort (“FIG. 4 illustrates one possible embodiment of a vehicle controller that receives information from one or more sensors to determine whether or not an event associated with an increased likelihood of motion sickness is present. In one such situation, a road surface may include regular height variations, such as expansion joints or concrete slab boundaries on a highway or bridge, which may impart a suspension perturbation at a specific distance period while the vehicle is driven over these driving surfaces.”, [0105], “data from one or more sensors indicative of operational conditions that may induce discomfort, such a motion sickness, to a vehicle occupant are stored for subsequent use or recall. This data may be stored either locally on a vehicle or remotely on a remotely located server or database. As detailed below, this data may be used to identify future occurrences of certain patterns of operational parameters that are precursors to or indicative of occupant discomfort, such as motion sickness. This recorded data may then be used as a predictive tool, for example for a specific occupant, specific road segment, or specific vehicle to identify events and/or locations that are likely to induce vehicle occupant discomfort.”, [0127], “In addition to the use of motion, a determination of increased likelihood of motion sickness in a vehicle occupant may be based at least partially on physiological parameters and/or direct inputs from the occupant…The physiological state of the one or more passengers may also be sensed including parameters, such as galvanic skin response at various locations on a person's body, temperature, heart rate, blood oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, hydration levels, and/or other metrics.”, [0162], “In certain embodiments of an LTD, positioning data, such as may be obtained from, for example, a GPS receiver, may have insufficient resolution to permit reliable navigation. Therefore, the global positional data in the LTD may be correlated with, and augmented by, information about the relative position of features such as trees, telephone poles, bridges, buildings, sign posts, and/or details about the road being traveled, including, for example, the relative position of turns, changes in elevation, and surface roughness and/or anomalies.”, [0136], see also Fig. 11 and [0128, 0146, 0155-0156]);
identify historical operating parameters (“operational conditions”, [0127]) of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location when the historical physiological data of the at least one occupant of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location was collected (“data from one or more sensors indicative of operational conditions that may induce discomfort, such a motion sickness, to a vehicle occupant are stored for subsequent use or recall. This data may be stored either locally on a vehicle or remotely on a remotely located server or database. As detailed below, this data may be used to identify future occurrences of certain patterns of operational parameters that are precursors to or indicative of occupant discomfort, such as motion sickness. This recorded data may then be used as a predictive tool, for example for a specific occupant, specific road segment, or specific vehicle to identify events and/or locations that are likely to induce vehicle occupant discomfort.”, [0127], see also [0146]); and
based at least in part on determining that the vehicle is approaching the geographic location or is at the geographic location, cause modification of an operating parameter of the vehicle, based at least in part on the historical operating parameters of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location, to avoid performing the vehicle operation on the specific terrain at the geographic location (“This database may include situational, operational, and/or geographic information. For example, in some embodiments, if vehicle sensors detect road conditions that are prone to cause passenger discomfort, for example motion sickness, an indication of such conditions may be communicated to one or more other vehicles and/or to a central database or server. This may allow other vehicles to compensate for or avoid discomfort causing road conditions before they are sensed by the vehicle. When a vehicle detects conditions that may cause passenger discomfort, an indication of severity may also be assigned to the detected pattern and may be communicated to other vehicles or interested parties. Depending on the level of severity, the vehicle may either change the planned route”, [0128], “The vehicle or occupants may decide to avoid such identified routes in an attempt to reduce vehicle occupant discomfort occurrence.”, [0129]).
Regarding claim 42, and similarly claim 32, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle by modifying at least one of acceleration, braking, window position, heating settings, cooling settings, entertainment system parameters, seat positioning, routing, or communication settings of the vehicle (“in stop-and-go traffic, instead of repeatedly employing the brakes to stop the vehicle at regular intervals, the throttle, transmission and ranging systems may be used to accelerate and decelerate the vehicle such that optimal spacing may be maintained with other vehicles and the use of the brakes can be minimized.”, [0123], “one or more controllers in a vehicle, that is under partial or full autonomous control, may be used to control two or more of the vehicular systems noted above including, for example, the active suspension, propulsion systems (e.g. throttle), braking system, and/or steering systems to coordinate operation of the vehicle to events and/or patterns that may cause discomfort to an individual. Further, operation of these vehicle system may be used to alter a frequency, direction, and/or magnitude of forces and/or accelerations that the vehicle and/or occupants within the vehicle are exposed. This coordination among two or more such systems may be established for a single events, for an extended period, such as for example when it is determined that motion sickness is likely, and/or may be used throughout vehicle operation as the disclosure is not limited in this fashion”, [0132]).
Regarding claim 43, and similarly claim 33, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle by causing the operating parameter of the vehicle to be modified directly (see [0123, 0132]), indirectly, or both.
Regarding claim 44, and similarly claim 34, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
detect presence of an occupant within the vehicle by detecting a signal from a wearable device comprising a sensor being worn by the occupant (“Based on a user profile, communication with a vehicle through wearable technology, vehicle access technology, or other personal identification technology, or by receiving a command from a person inside or outside the vehicle, a vehicle may be placed in an entry assist mode.”, [0208]).
Regarding claim 46, and similarly claim 36, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the historical operating parameters of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location by:
using a trained machine learning model to detect correlations between the historical physiological data of the at least one occupant of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location and the historical operating parameters of the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location (“These event patterns may be determined empirically to cause motion sickness or deemed to do so by using predictive mathematical and/or empirical models. An event pattern is a series of events that occur over a period of time and affect the dynamic state of the vehicle during that period in a manner that affects an occupant in any number of ways.”, [0159], see also [0160]).
Regarding claim 47, and similarly claim 37, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine current operating parameter status information of the vehicle, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle at the geographic location based on the current operating parameter status information of the vehicle (“For example, motion mitigation procedures may be implemented when a vehicle is traveling at speeds or under traffic conditions and/or within geographic locations, as determined through GPS coordinates, where the likelihood of motion sickness is elevated. Additionally, such mitigation procedures may be used continuously, for example for a particular trip, a portion of a trip, when the vehicle is used at particular times of the day, and/or for particular passengers.”, [0149], see also [0134]).
Regarding claim 49, and similarly claim 39, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle at the geographic location based on receiving, from at least a sensor operatively coupled to an occupant of the vehicle, physiological data of the occupant (“In addition to the use of motion, a determination of increased likelihood of motion sickness in a vehicle occupant may be based at least partially on physiological parameters and/or direct inputs from the occupant. In one such embodiment, one or more cameras may be used for facial recognition of one or more passengers within the vehicle, in order to identify the passengers, as well as to measure head movements of the one or more passengers in the vehicle as noted above. Microphones (with speech recognition) and other communication interfaces may be used by the vehicle controller to communicate with passengers and for passengers to communicate with the vehicle. For example, a vehicle occupant may indicate the severity of motion sickness and/or a desired mode of operation to the controller which may then subsequently be used to determine appropriate motion and/or motion sickness mediation techniques to be implemented during vehicle operation. The physiological state of the one or more passengers may also be sensed including parameters, such as galvanic skin response at various locations on a person's body, temperature, heart rate, blood oxygen and carbon dioxide levels, hydration levels, and/or other metrics. Such physiological sensing may be conducted by the vehicle, or by wearable devices such as an electronic bracelet or smart watch with the appropriate sensors built therein.”, [0162]).
Regarding claim 50, and similarly claim 40, Anderson teaches The system of claim 49, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle at the geographic location based on comparing the physiological data of the occupant to the historical physiological data (“In the above embodiments, the comparisons between the detected motions of the vehicle and/or occupant with one or more previously identified events and/or pattern templates may be based on instantaneous and/or average data that characterizes motion of the vehicle body, seats, and/or one or more portions of a passenger's body (e.g. torso, head, etc.) that occur over a period of time. If real time data from a vehicle matches or is similar to a previously obtained template over a certain period of time, for example up to 10 minutes, it may be used as an indication that there is a likelihood of motion sickness occurring on a particular route. Data obtained when developing the templates and during operation may be collected using one or more sensors such as, for example, cameras and accelerometers that capture the dynamics of the vehicle and/or one or more passengers. A determination of the likelihood of motion sickness may be based on the rate at which the patterns are repeated and/or the duration of the period of their occurrence.”, [0161]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 35, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20240181827 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20180178808 A1).
Regarding claim 45, and similarly claim 35, Anderson teaches The system of claim 44, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
cause data to be stored in association with a profile associated with the occupant of the vehicle, (“One or more unique profiles may also be created and saved to a local and/or remotely located database to indicate personal suspension preferences previously input or determined for one or more occupants. For example, an occupant may be prone to motion sickness and may prefer a ride experience focused on comfort instead of speed. Each occupant can save a profile within the vehicle.”, [0154], “In addition to deciding whether or not to implement corrective actions on a vehicle, if an event or pattern is identified that is either associated with motion sickness at a particular location and/or a vehicle occupant indicates that the detected motions and/or events resulted in motion sickness, the vehicle may store this pattern and/or event at 227 and 228.”, [0155]).
Anderson teaches storing data to be associated with an occupant profile, but does not teach that the data is indicative of a physiological parameter measurement of the occupant.
Further, Anderson teaches
cause data to be stored in association with a profile (“In addition to deciding whether or not to implement corrective actions on a vehicle, if an event or pattern is identified that is either associated with motion sickness at a particular location and/or a vehicle occupant indicates that the detected motions and/or events resulted in motion sickness, the vehicle may store this pattern and/or event at 227 and 228.”, [0155]).
Anderson teaches storing data indicative of a physiological parameter measurement of the occupant to be associated with a pattern on a server, but does not teach storing the data to be associated with an occupant profile.
However, Zhao teaches
cause data to be stored in association with a profile associated with the occupant of the vehicle, wherein the data is indicative of a physiological parameter measurement of the occupant (“Control system 16 determines occupant health data indicative of physiological and behavioral characteristics of occupant 13 and occupant state data indicative of a state of occupant 13 based on the signals from sensor system 14 as suggested in FIG. 11A.”, [0039], “Control system 16 is configured to associate activation of vehicle system 78 with the occupant health data and the occupant state data in a unique occupant data profile.”, [0068], “By associating associate activation of vehicle system 78 with the occupant health data and the occupant state data in the unique occupant data profile, control system 16 learns occupant preferences and behaviors over time.”, [0070]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anderson with the teachings of Zhao such that the processing circuitry of Anderson is further configured to store data is indicative of a physiological parameter measurement of the occupant with a profile of the occupant, as suggested by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be such that the vehicle system of Anderson “learns occupant preferences and behaviors over time” [0070], as taught by Zhao.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38 and 48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Regarding claim 48, and similarly claim 38, Anderson teaches The system of claim 41, wherein (“Data may be received by a vehicle controller from various vehicle sensors and inputs including, for example, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a load sensor, a laser or radar based range finder, an optical camera, an infrared camera, data received from vehicle occupant input, a combination of any of the above, and/or any other appropriate sensor…Information from one or more of these sensors may be fed into a pattern detection algorithm that resides in the vehicle controller 194. This pattern detection may be used to identify any desired event patterns related to vehicle motion including, for example, roll, pitch, heave, road surface irregularities, acceleration, braking, a combination of the foregoing, as well as any other appropriate type of motion.”, [0146]), and the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the modification of the operating parameter of the vehicle by modifying at least one of speed, acceleration, or braking of the vehicle based on the indication in the historical operating parameters that the at least one other vehicle at the geographic location was driving(“one or more controllers in a vehicle may be used to determine a proper speed at which a vehicle should navigate a turn, or other maneuver, in the road so that the active suspension system may be able to maintain a vehicle at a desired positive, neutral, or negative roll angle throughout the turn while maintaining operation of the active suspension system within a desired threshold limit such as an energy threshold, a force threshold. In some embodiments, the coordination between two or more systems such as the active suspension, propulsion, and braking systems, may also be used to control vehicle pitch during braking by changing a frequency of braking events, vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, and other appropriate parameters. Additionally, when it is determined that one or more passengers are likely to suffer from motion sickness, or other discomfort, the above, or other mitigation techniques using one or more of the noted vehicle systems as described herein may be instituted.”, [0134]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights