DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) Status
Claims 10 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (“Meng”, US 20190370577 A1, IDS) in view of Grube et al. (“Grube”, US 20160090097 A1, IDS), Kozlowski et al (“Kozlowski”, US 20200339143 A1) and Roca et al. (“Roca”, US 20190019412 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 11, a system configured for verifying whether vehicle operators are distracted during driving (¶0083; ¶0124; Fig. 12), the system comprising: as per the limitation a set of sensors configured to generate output signals conveying information related to a first vehicle operator during a period of operation of a first vehicle. While, Meng does not specifically state the use of a set of sensors configured to output signals conveying information related a first vehicle operator during a period of operation of a first vehicle. Meng does disclose the use of at least one sensing device, see abstract; ¶0005; ¶0035; ¶0056; ¶0080-81; ¶0090; ¶0140, with regard to the camera assembly obtaining driver image information to enable determination of fatigue and attention of the driver status. Grube discloses, in ¶0017, the concept of performing continuous fatigue level monitoring of a vehicle driver via the use of a set of sensors, see ¶0010. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of performing continuous fatigue level monitoring of a vehicle driver via the use of a set of sensors, with the motivation to enhance the driver’s alertness and fatigue state monitoring features of the system to assist in proper alert notification of the driver’s vehicle operational state. As per the limitation one or more hardware processors configured by machine-readable instructions (Meng: ¶0082-83; ¶0124-125; Fig. 12). As per the limitation to determine in an ongoing manner, based on the generated output signals, a distraction level of the first vehicle operator during the operation of the first vehicle, wherein the distraction level quantitatively represents a degree of distraction of the first vehicle operator from operating the first vehicle in a manner that is appropriate for being in active control of the operation of the first vehicle. Kozlowski discloses, in ¶¶19, 33-56, the concept of analyzing fatigue to determine a distracted condition of a driver and start determining a distraction measurement/level based on the amount of time that the driver has been detected and determined as being in the distracted condition (corresponding to a distraction level quantitatively represents a degree of distraction), via the use of a driver monitoring system that uses a camera and an infrared LED (corresponding to a set of sensors) to enable the system to adjust thresholds related to time to collision conditions. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate, the concept of analyzing fatigue to determine a distracted condition of a driver and start determining a distraction measurement/level based on the amount of time that the driver has been detected and determined as being in the distracted condition, via the use of a driver monitoring system that uses a camera and an infrared LED to enable the system to adjust thresholds related to time to collision conditions, with the motivation to enhance the safety features of the system. As per the limitation modify a distraction threshold, wherein a modification is based on a current speed of the first vehicle. Roca discloses, in ¶0008-11; ¶0026; ¶0033-34; ¶0044-47 with reference to Figs. 4A-6D, the concept of modifying an alert threshold based of vehicle speed analysis. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of modifying an alert threshold based of vehicle speed analysis, with the motivation to enhance the alertness evaluation features of the system. As per the limitation responsive to the distraction level breaching the distraction threshold, effectuate a notification to at least one of the first vehicle operator and a remote computing server (Meng: ¶0044; ¶0123; ¶0131; Roca: ¶0026). 2) Regarding claims 2 and 12, wherein the set of sensors include one or more cameras (Meng: Figs. 2-5). 3) Regarding claims 3 and 13, wherein the distraction level is based on a direction in which attention of the first vehicle operator is focused during the operation of the first vehicle (Meng: ¶¶125-143; Fig. 3). 4) Regarding claims 4 and 14, wherein the distraction level is further based on a duration during which the attention of the first vehicle operator is not focused on operating the first vehicle (Meng: ¶¶125-132). 5) Regarding claims 6 and 16, wherein the fatigue level is based on at least one of head movement of the first vehicle operator and/or a duration of the eyes of the first vehicle operator closing (Meng: ¶12-13). 7) Regarding claims 9 and 19, wherein the notification is effectuated during the period of operation of the first vehicle (Meng: ¶¶11, 26, 41, 43, 101, 106, 123, 159, 168, 174-178, 206, 224).
Claim(s) 8 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng in view of Grube and Roca, and in further view of Deng et al. (“Deng”, US 20200346658 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claims 8 and 18, wherein the operation of the first vehicle is actively and primarily controlled by an autonomous driving algorithm. Roca discloses, in ¶¶27, 32 & claim 18, the known concept of integrating a driving assistance system with an autonomous driving system. Deng discloses, in ¶37-38; Fig. 2, the concept of using an autonomous driving system in the form of a processing chip (element 47) to evaluate input signals concerning safe driving and enable the processing chip to activate a warning device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using an autonomous driving system in the form of a processing chip to evaluate input signals concerning safe driving and enable the processing chip to activate a warning device, with the motivation to enhance the driving assist features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15 & 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/05/2025 have been considered but are moot because the amendment change the scope. Furthermore, the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of prior art of record reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights