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
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7, 8-18,20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7,8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,407 in view of claim 1,7,13 of U.S. 11,364,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,162,407 would encompass the broader claims 1-7,8-15 of the current application. U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,162,407 does not explicitly emphasize that object detection precedes the determination of device usage as separate logical emphasis. U.S. 11,364,845 teaches determining whether the driver is using a computer device; and condition alert output based on such determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply U.S. 11,364,845’s explicit device usage determination logic to U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,162,407 vehicle-based monitoring system to reinforce driver distraction mitigation and ensure alerts and provided only when the driver is using the device.
Claims 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7,8-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,407 in view of claim 1,7,13 of U.S. 11,364,845 of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,493,911. U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,162,407 teaches detection of a person ahead of the vehicle while moving. Further classification is an obvious refinement of the same detection process. U.S. Patent No. 10,493,911 teaches determining that the vehicle is in motion while the people are in the crosswalk.
Current application
U.S. 12,162,407
U.S. 11,364,845
U.S.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
4
4
4
5
5
3
6
6
6
7
7
1
8
1
9
/
10
/
11
/
12
8
1,7
13
9
8
14
10
7
15
11
10
16
12
9
17
13
12
18
14
7
19
/
20
15
1,13
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the change" and “the at least one condition” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the change" and “the at least one condition” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-7, 12-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampiholi (US 2016/0267335) in view of Salomonsson et al. (US 2014/0222280).
As per claim 1, Hampiholi discloses
A computing system of a vehicle (in-vehicle computing system 200, head unit 304a, processor(s); Para 5,30,34; Fig. 2, 3A), comprising:
a vehicle monitoring system comprising at least one sensor (sensor subsystem 2010, driver-facing and additional sensors; Para. 34,60,64);
a network communication interface (communication interface with wearable/mobile devices; Para 30,31,42);
one or more processors (one or more processor performing data processing); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to (non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions for monitoring and object detection; Para 31,32-36,41,42,43-44,47,58,62,64; Fig. 5-6):
using the vehicle monitoring system while the vehicle is moving, process sensor data from the at least one sensor to detect an object ahead of the vehicle (detect objects and pedestrians ahead using front facing/driver-facing camera (Para. 58,62,64,32-36,43).
However, Hampiholi does not explicitly discloses wirelessly connect with a computing device of a driver of the vehicle while the driver is within the vehicle; determine, based on being wirelessly connected with the computing device of the driver, that the driver of the vehicle is using the computing device; based on detecting the object and determining that the driver is using the computing device, output an alert to the computing device of the driver.
Salomonsson discloses a vehicle alert system comprising at least one camera and associated sensors to monitor the driver and external conditions (Para. 24-29). Salomonsson teaches wireless connecting with a driver’s computing device, determining whether the driver is interacting with a mobile device such as cell phone or PDA, and outputting an alert to the driver’s device when the driver is determined to be inattentive due to device use (Para 25,27).
Therefore, Salomonsson discloses a vehicle monitoring system comprising at least one sensor (camera/sensor; Para. 29,32-37,43-46); a network communication interface (Para 24); one or more processors and a memory (Para. 24); wirelessly connect with computing device (Para. 25-27,49-52); determine driver is using device (Para. 25-27); output alert computing device based on detection and driver usage (Para 25).
However, Salomonsson does not explicitly disclose processing sensor data to detect objects ahead of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify Hampiholi to include the driver-device monitoring and alerting functionality taught by Salomonsson. Specifically, Hampiholi provides a robust vehicle monitoring system for detecting objects and assessing driver distraction, and Salomonsson provides techniques for determining whether a driver is using a computing device and alert the driver accordingly. Combining these teachings would have been a predictable application of known techniques to improve driver safety by providing alerts to drivers using mobile devices when objects are detected ahead of the vehicle. Similarly, it would have been obvious to apply Hampiholi’s object detection while moving to the driver-monitoring system of Salomonsson to improve overall driver awareness and safety.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine the systems and methods of Hampiholi and Salomonsson to arrive at the computing system of claim 1. Such a combination yields predictable results and would have been within the ordinary skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 2, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses detecting the object comprising detecting a traffic light changing states (Para. 20, 29).
As per claim 3, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses at least one output device; wherein the computing system further outputs the alert via the at least one output device (Para. 16,26,29). Hampiholi discloses similar limitation (Fig. 3A-3B, 4).
As per claim 4, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses the at least one output device comprises a display screen of the vehicle (Para 26 and 29). Hampiholi discloses similar limitation (Fig. 3A-3B, 4).
As per claim 5, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses the at least one output device comprises at least one audio speaker of the vehicle (Para 16). Hampiholi discloses similar limitation (Fig. 3A-3B, 4).
As per claim 6, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses the at least one sensor comprises one or more cameras of the vehicle (Para 29). Hampiholi discloses similar limitation (Para. 64).
As per claim 7, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and Salomonsson further discloses the alert indicates the change in the at least one condition external to the vehicle (Para 24,26). Hampiholi discloses similar limitation (Para. 64-65; Fig. 4).
As per claims 12-18, 20; they correspond to claims 1-7; they are therefore rejected for the similar set forth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 19 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s), 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 HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689