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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “set detection duration time” should read “set a detection duration time”.
In claim 3, line 3, “based on reference detection duration time” should read “based on a reference detection duration time”.
In claim 6, line 8, “set … detection duration time” should read “set … a detection duration time”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “behavior change detector being configured to perform a detection of a change in behavior” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant has provided sufficient structure for the claimed behavior change detector on page 11, lines 15-17 of the specification as “the behavior change detector 42a may be a configuration unit or a circuit unit that detects a change in the behavior, for example, of the driver based on, for example, an image acquired by the imager.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for monitoring an occupant of a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An occupant monitoring apparatus for a vehicle, the occupant monitoring apparatus comprising:
an imager configured to acquire an image of a driver who drives the vehicle; and
an occupant monitoring controller comprising a behavior change detector and an alarm outputter, the behavior change detector being configured to perform a detection of a change in a behavior of the driver based on the image acquired by the imager [mental process/step], the alarm outputter being configured to output predetermined alarm information based on a result of the detection performed by the behavior change detector, wherein
the behavior change detector is configured to set detection duration time based on which the change in the behavior of the driver is detected, depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle and a type of a driving assistance control that is in execution of the vehicle [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “perform a detection…” and “set detection duration time…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement and adjusting parameters of the judgement based on present conditions. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An occupant monitoring apparatus for a vehicle, the occupant monitoring apparatus comprising:
an imager configured to acquire an image of a driver who drives the vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
an occupant monitoring controller comprising a behavior change detector and an alarm outputter, the behavior change detector being configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] perform a detection of a change in a behavior of the driver based on the image acquired by the imager, the alarm outputter being configured to output predetermined alarm information based on a result of the detection performed by the behavior change detector [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)], wherein
the behavior change detector is configured to set detection duration time based on which the change in the behavior of the driver is detected, depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle and a type of a driving assistance control that is in execution of the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire an image” and “output predetermined alarm information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (occupant monitoring controller) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring from the imager is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering driver behavior data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting an alarm step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of notifying the result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “occupant monitoring controller” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying driver behavior) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a occupant monitoring controller to perform the detection… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of “acquire an image” and “output predetermined alarm information…,”the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as controlling the vehicle based on the determination that the behavior change of the driver has exceeded the detection duration time. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sano (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0018968; hereinafter Sano).
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches an occupant monitoring apparatus for a vehicle (Sano: Par. 19; i.e., a vehicle control system including a driver monitoring device),
the occupant monitoring apparatus comprising: an imager configured to acquire an image of a driver who drives the vehicle (Sano: Par. 21; i.e., the driver monitoring camera 3 is an example of an interior sensor… The driver monitoring camera 3 takes a picture of the driver to generate an image representing the driver);
and an occupant monitoring controller comprising a behavior change detector and an alarm outputter, the behavior change detector being configured to perform a detection of a change in a behavior of the driver based on the image acquired by the imager (Sano: Par. 34; i.e., the orientation detection unit 32 detects, among an orientation of the face of the driver and a gaze direction of the driver, at least the gaze direction based on the driver image; Par. 57; i.e., the inattentiveness determination unit 35 determines that the inattentiveness warning condition is satisfied when a period in which the detected one of the orientation of the face or the gaze direction is deviated from a predetermined angle range centered on the front direction of the vehicle 10, is longer than a predetermined time threshold; Par. 23; i.e., the ECU 5 notifies the driver of the inattentiveness warning via the notification device 4 when the inattentiveness warning condition is satisfied),
the alarm outputter being configured to output predetermined alarm information based on a result of the detection performed by the behavior change detector (Sano: Par. 64; i.e., when the inattentiveness warning condition is satisfied (step S107—Yes), the notification processing unit 36 notifies the driver of the inattentiveness warning via the notification device),
wherein the behavior change detector is configured to set detection duration time based on which the change in the behavior of the driver is detected, depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle and a type of a driving assistance control that is in execution of the vehicle (Sano: Par. 42; i.e., the determination unit 33 may limit the peripheral visual range as the speed of the vehicle 10 measured by a vehicle speed sensor; Par. 44; i.e., when the object direction to the detected target object is included within the peripheral visual range, the setting unit 34 sets the inattentiveness warning condition based on the driving mode being applied to the vehicle; Par. 46; i.e., the time threshold in the first inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value greater than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; the detection duration time is set according to the driving mode and the peripheral visual range which varies according to the vehicle speed).
Regarding claim 6, Sano teaches an occupant monitoring apparatus for a vehicle (Sano: Par. 19; i.e., a vehicle control system including a driver monitoring device),
the occupant monitoring apparatus comprising circuitry configured to acquire an image of a driver who drives the vehicle (Sano: Par. 21; i.e., the driver monitoring camera 3 is an example of an interior sensor… The driver monitoring camera 3 takes a picture of the driver to generate an image representing the driver),
perform a detection of a change in a behavior of the driver based on the acquired image (Sano: Par. 34; i.e., the orientation detection unit 32 detects, among an orientation of the face of the driver and a gaze direction of the driver, at least the gaze direction based on the driver image; Par. 57; i.e., the inattentiveness determination unit 35 determines that the inattentiveness warning condition is satisfied when a period in which the detected one of the orientation of the face or the gaze direction is deviated from a predetermined angle range centered on the front direction of the vehicle 10, is longer than a predetermined time threshold),
output predetermined alarm information based on a result of the detection of the change in the behavior (Sano: Par. 64; i.e., when the inattentiveness warning condition is satisfied (step S107—Yes), the notification processing unit 36 notifies the driver of the inattentiveness warning via the notification device),
and set, upon the detection of the change in the behavior, detection duration time based on which the change in the behavior of the driver is detected, depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle and a type of a driving assistance control that is in execution of the vehicle (Sano: Par. 42; i.e., the determination unit 33 may limit the peripheral visual range as the speed of the vehicle 10 measured by a vehicle speed sensor; Par. 44; i.e., when the object direction to the detected target object is included within the peripheral visual range, the setting unit 34 sets the inattentiveness warning condition based on the driving mode being applied to the vehicle; Par. 46; i.e., the time threshold in the first inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value greater than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; the detection duration time is set according to the driving mode and the peripheral visual range which varies according to the vehicle speed).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano.
Regarding claim 2, Sano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Sano further teaches wherein the type of the driving assistance control comprises a first driving assistance control configured to perform acceleration and deceleration controls, a second driving assistance control configured to perform the acceleration and deceleration controls and a steering control at a steering angle smaller than a predetermined steering angle (Sano: Par. 46; i.e., when the driving mode applied to the vehicle 10 is a first driving mode in which the driver is not required to hold a steering … the first operation mode may be, for example, an operation mode compliant with autonomous driving level 2 defined by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE); Par. 49; i.e., the second driving mode may be a driving mode compliant with autonomous driving level 0 or level 1 defined by SAE, for example, a driving mode to which adaptive cruise control or lane tracing assist is applied; SAE level 2 includes controlling lateral steering such as lane centering and lane changing which control a steering angle smaller than a predetermined steering angle).
Sano does not explicitly teach a third driving assistance control configured to perform the acceleration and deceleration controls and a steering control at a steering angle equal to or larger than the predetermined steering angle, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an additional driving assistance control configured to perform the acceleration and deceleration controls and a steering control at a steering angle equal to or larger than the predetermined steering angle such as levels 3-5 of the SAE automation levels in which the steering is controlled at steering angles larger than the predetermined steering angle.
Regarding claim 3, Sano teaches the apparatus according to claim 2. Sano further teaches wherein the behavior change detector is configured to perform the detection based on reference detection duration time when neither of the first driving assistance control, the second driving assistance control, or the third driving assistance control is executed (Sano: Par. 63; i.e., when the object direction to the target object is not included within the peripheral visual range (step S104—No), the setting unit 34 sets a second inattentiveness warning condition (step S106); if the object is not detected in the detection range, the reference detection duration is set as a narrow window of time independent of the driving mode),
the reference detection duration time being set depending on the traveling speed of the vehicle (Sano: Par. 42; i.e., the determination unit 33 may limit the peripheral visual range as the speed of the vehicle 10 measured by a vehicle speed sensor),
perform the detection based on first detection duration time when the first driving assistance control is in execution, the first detection duration time having first time being added to the reference detection duration time, perform the detection based on second detection duration time when the second driving assistance control is in execution, the second detection duration time having second time being added to the reference detection duration time, and perform the detection based on third detection duration time when the third driving assistance control is in execution, the third detection duration time having third time being added to the reference detection duration time (Sano: Par. 46; i.e., the time threshold in the first inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value greater than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; Par. 49; i.e., the time threshold in the third inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value smaller than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; the detection duration times increase as the required amount of driver intervention decreases).
Regarding claim 4, Sano teaches the apparatus according to claim 3. Sano further teaches wherein the first time is equal to or less than the second time, the second time is equal to or more than the first time and equal to or less than the third time, the third time is equal to or more than the second time, the reference detection duration time is shorter than the first detection duration time, the first detection duration time is shorter than the second detection duration time, and the second detection duration time is shorter than the third detection duration time (Sano: Par. 46; i.e., the time threshold in the first inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value greater than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; Par. 49; i.e., the time threshold in the third inattentiveness warning condition is set to a value smaller than the time threshold in the second inattentiveness warning condition; the detection duration times increase as the amount of driver intervention required decreases).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano and further in view of Hata et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0234607; hereinafter Hata).
Regarding claim 5, Sano teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, but does not teach wherein the third driving assistance control comprises an auto lane changing control that is to be started upon reception of an ON signal of a direction indicator, the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the third detection duration time, when a facial direction of the driver and a direction indicated by the direction indicator coincide with each other, and the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the reference detection duration time, when the facial direction of the driver and the direction indicated by the direction indicator do not coincide with each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hata teaches wherein the third driving assistance control comprises an auto lane changing control that is to be started upon reception of an ON signal of a direction indicator (Hata: Par. 139; i.e., the lane change assistance function is a function of controlling the steering and assisting the lane change when the driver operates the direction indicator 44 or when the driving assistance system 100 proposes a lane change and the driver presses the lane change assistance switch 67), the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the third detection duration time, when a facial direction of the driver and a direction indicated by the direction indicator coincide with each other (Hata: Par. 320; i.e., the controller 8 determines whether or not the driver is facing the lane change direction continuously for a predetermined time (a second predetermined time). When it is determined that the driver is facing the lane change direction continuously for a predetermined time, the controller 8 proceeds to processing of step S608 and notifies the forward looking alert. This is because the driver is facing the lane change direction for more than a certain time, which is dangerous as in the case of the distracted driving), and the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the reference detection duration time, when the facial direction of the driver and the direction indicated by the direction indicator do not coincide with each other (Hata: Par. 318; i.e., when the controller 8 determines that the driver is not facing the lane change direction in step S605, the controller 8 proceeds to processing of step S608 and notifies the driver of the forward looking alert by the display and voice of the presentation device; Par. 311; i.e., the controller 8 determines whether or not the driver is not facing forward (a traveling direction of the host vehicle 10) continuously for a predetermined time (a first predetermined time, for example, about 5 seconds); as displayed in Figure 11, if the driver is not facing forward and is not facing the lane change direction, the driver is notified after the first predetermined time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Sano, to have further incorporated wherein the third driving assistance control comprises an auto lane changing control that is to be started upon reception of an ON signal of a direction indicator, the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the third detection duration time, when a facial direction of the driver and a direction indicated by the direction indicator coincide with each other, and the behavior change detector, during the execution of the third driving assistance control, is configured to perform the detection based on the reference detection duration time, when the facial direction of the driver and the direction indicated by the direction indicator do not coincide with each other, as taught by Hata. Doing so would reduce unnecessary warnings and prevent the driver from looking away for too long (Hata: Par. 359; i.e., it is possible to prevent the driver from not looking forward for a long time at the time of the lane change).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of driver behavior monitoring includes Okabe et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0278565), Sobhany (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0261050), Mizoguchi (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0282984), Sobhany (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0239007), and Marberger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11383730).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665