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 01/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the order of the words “calculating a feature amount of a predetermined region which is included in each of photographed images in the predetermined direction of the vehicle and in which a frequency at which the feature amount is equal to or larger than a threshold is equal to or higher than a predetermined frequency when the traveling direction of the vehicle is the predetermined direction” does not make sense and the language appears to be a direct translation from a foreign language. Claims 2-19 are objected to for at least comprising subject matter which is the same or similar to the objected claim subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required for clarity.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim(s) recite(s) a driving assistance device that: (1) determines a travelling direction; (2) from one or more photographed images in direction of travel, calculates a feature amount; (3) estimates attention state of a driver from the calculated feature.
Step 2A — Prong One:
The claim recites a series of evaluative/inferential operations (“determine … determines a travelling direction,” “calculates a feature amount” and “estimates attention state of a driver from the calculated feature”) that are observations, evaluations, and inferences about human cognitive or attention states.
Under the USPTO PEG, such observations/evaluations/inferences about a person’s internal state fall within the “mental processes” judicial-exception category.
Interim determination (Prong One): The claim recites judicial exceptions—primarily mental processes (evaluations/inferences about cognitive or attention state).
Step 2A — Prong Two: Is the exception integrated into a practical application?
The claim is tied to physical components (a processor, a memory, photographed images etc.). Tying abstract ideas to physical devices can weigh toward integration.
However, the claim’s substantive steps are high-level functional determinations (“determine X based on Y”) with no specific technical detail about how the determining, calculating and estimating are carried out.
Case law: merely collecting data and analyzing it, has been treated as an abstract result if the claim does not recite a specific technical improvement in sensing/determining, processing, or a non-generic machine arrangement (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom; Alice).
Interim determination (Prong Two): On the face of the claim, the abstract mental-process/data-analysis steps are not clearly integrated into a particularized technological solution. The recited processor and memory provide context but, without technical detail showing an improvement to determining operation, data processing, or system functioning, they are closer to conventional physical inputs used to carry out mental-process-type analysis.
Step 2B — “Significantly more” (do additional elements add an inventive concept?)
Identify “additional elements”: a processor, a memory, photographed images, and the ordered combination of the steps.
Are these elements well-understood, routine, conventional? Absent claim limitations or specification evidence that the processor and the memory are unconventional or provide a technological improvement, they appear to be routine uses of sensors/determining and data-processing to infer state results.
Ordered combination: The sequence (receive data → infer cognitive/attention metrics → derive attention awareness) is a conventional information-processing workflow (collect/analyze/infer).
Under current precedent, such claims typically do not provide “significantly more” where the asserted inventive concept is only the abstract inference/diagnosis and the remaining elements are generic or conventional (see Alice; Mayo; Electric Power Group). Berkheimer holds that if applicant presents evidence that particular elements are unconventional, that factual showing can alter the analysis; none is present here.
Conclusion — directed to an abstract idea?
The claim is directed to an abstract idea under § 101. The core of the claim is the mental-process/data-analysis exception (inferring cognitive or attention states) and the additional elements (processor and memory) are recited at a high level and, as written, appear to be conventional data-collection/processing components that do not supply “significantly more.”
Similarly, claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14-19 are rejected because they are extension of the same or similar abstract idea without significantly more as rejected above.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahshua et al. (Shashua; US 2020/0073388) in view of Mori et al. (Mori; US 2023/0025721).
As per claim 1, Shashua teaches a driving assistance device comprising:
a processor (one or more processors; see e.g. abstract); and
a memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (a memory including instructions to carry out one or more tasks by the processor; see e.g. abstract) comprising:
determining whether a traveling direction of a vehicle is a predetermined direction (based on applicant’s definition, the predetermined direction is a direction corresponding to a specific region included in the photographed image. Shadua teaches determining heading direction for a vehicle, see e.g. para. [0040]; furthermore, the system captures one or more road features using one or more sensors, wherein the captured features include traffic sign, an arrow marking, a directional sign, highway exit sign, a land mark etc.; see e.g. para. [0442], i.e. heading direction and heading in a predetermined direction is taught);
calculating a feature amount of a predetermined region (calculating a free space region 6402 and/or an associated boundary [feature amount from entirety of depicted space], see e.g. FIG. 64, 65 and para. [0823-824]) which is included in each of photographed images in the predetermined direction of the vehicle (the free space region and the associated boundary, forward of the vehicle, see para. [820], is included in a plurality of photographed images, see e.g. FIGS. 64, 65 and para. [0827]) and in which a frequency at which the feature amount is equal to or larger than a threshold (the free space region is determined to be equal to or larger than a threshold width of the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0825]) is equal to or higher than a predetermined frequency (wherein the determined free space 6402 or 6502 as discussed earlier, see e.g. para. [823-826], occurs or not more than a predetermined frequency of one) when the traveling direction of the vehicle is the predetermined direction (the travelling of the host vehicle in a predetermined or forward direction; see e.g. para. [0826] and FIG. 65).
Shashua does not teach estimating an attention state of a driver of the vehicle from the feature amount.
Mori teaches estimating an attention state of a driver of the vehicle from a feature amount (a cognitive or attention state of a driver is determined based on a cognitive region of the driver in the environment and an associated action of driver, see e.g. para. [0008] and FIGS. 6A and 9, i.e., whether or not a driver recognized a region to be recognized; see e.g. para. [0147]). Shashua and Mori are in same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved driving assistance as suggested by Mori.
As per claim 3, the driving assistance device according to claim 1 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the predetermined direction includes a straight direction, and the region includes a region which is included in each of the photographed images continuous in time series and in which the frequency at which the feature amount is equal to or larger than the threshold is equal to or higher than the predetermined frequency during traveling in the straight direction (the direction is straight direction, wherein the region is a region in the Pho graphed images as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1).
As per claim 5, the driving assistance device according to claim 1 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, estimates the attention state representing a degree of inappropriateness of the driver for driving, the degree of inappropriateness being represented by the feature amount (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Mori teaches a cognitive [or inappropriateness state]of a driver is determined based on a cognitive region of the driver in the environment and an associated action of driver, see e.g. para. [0008] and FIGS. 6A and 9, i.e., whether or not a driver recognized a region to be recognized; see e.g. para. [0147]).
As per claim 7, the driving assistance device according to claim 3 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, estimates the attention state representing a degree of inappropriateness of the driver for driving, the degree of inappropriateness being represented by the feature amount (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Mori teaches a cognitive [or inappropriateness state]of a driver is determined based on a cognitive region of the driver in the environment and an associated action of driver, see e.g. para. [0008] and FIGS. 6A and 9, i.e., whether or not a driver recognized a region to be recognized; see e.g. para. [0147]).
As per claim 9, the driving assistance device according to claim 1 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs output information in an output mode corresponding to an estimation result of the attention state (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9).
As per claim 11, the driving assistance device according to claim 3 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs output information in an output mode corresponding to an estimation result of the attention state (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9).
As per claim 14, the driving assistance device according to claim 9 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, determines a driving proficiency of the driver, and outputs the output information in an output mode corresponding to the attention state and the driving proficiency (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9, wherein cognitive state is a driving efficiency, wherein Mori also teaches detecting one or more actions of driver which correspond to attention state and/or driving proficiency, i.e. degree of eye opening, degree of concentration and so forth, see e.g. para. [0048]).
As per claims 18 and 19, they are interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahshua in view of Mori and further in view of Isu et al. (Isu; US Patent No. 6,301,301).
As per claim 2, the driving assistance device according to claim 1 as taught by Shashua and Mori, except the claimed wherein the feature amount includes a prediction error, an inter-frame error, a variance of the prediction error, a differential of the prediction error, a variance of the inter-frame error, or a differential of the inter-frame error.
Isu, however, teaches feature amount includes a prediction error, an inter-frame error, a variance of the prediction error, a differential of the prediction error, a variance of the inter-frame error, or a differential of the inter-frame error (an area determinator 115 calculates a variance of prediction error signal obtained by a predictor 114, see e.g. col. 2, lines 8-11; similarly, the method can be used with the disclosed systems of Shashua and/or Mori for signal processing). Shashua, Mori and Isu are in a same or similar filed of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of an improved error detection system.
As per claim 4, the driving assistance device according to claim 2 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Isu, wherein the predetermined direction includes a straight direction, and the region includes a region which is included in each of the photographed images continuous in time series and in which the frequency at which the feature amount is equal to or larger than the threshold is equal to or higher than the predetermined frequency during traveling in the straight direction (the direction is straight direction, wherein the region is a region in the Pho graphed images as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1).
As per claim 6, the driving assistance device according to claim 2 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Isu, wherein the processor, in operation, estimates the attention state representing a degree of inappropriateness of the driver for driving, the degree of inappropriateness being represented by the feature amount (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Mori teaches a cognitive [or inappropriateness state]of a driver is determined based on a cognitive region of the driver in the environment and an associated action of driver, see e.g. para. [0008] and FIGS. 6A and 9, i.e., whether or not a driver recognized a region to be recognized; see e.g. para. [0147]).
As per claim 8, the driving assistance device according to claim 4 as taught by Shashua, Mori, and Isu, wherein the processor, in operation, estimates the attention state representing a degree of inappropriateness of the driver for driving, the degree of inappropriateness being represented by the feature amount (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, Mori teaches a cognitive [or inappropriateness state]of a driver is determined based on a cognitive region of the driver in the environment and an associated action of driver, see e.g. para. [0008] and FIGS. 6A and 9, i.e., whether or not a driver recognized a region to be recognized; see e.g. para. [0147]).
As per claim 10, the driving assistance device according to claim 2 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Isu, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs output information in an output mode corresponding to an estimation result of the attention state (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9).
As per claim 12, the driving assistance device according to claim 4 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Isu, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs output information in an output mode corresponding to an estimation result of the attention state (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9).
Claims 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahshua in view of Mori and further in view of Nagasawa (Nagasawa; US 2023/0339493).
As per claim 13, the driving assistance device according to claim 9 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs the output information in an output mode of indicating that the attention state is poor (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9) as a degree of inappropriateness represented by the attention state is higher than normal or a predetermined threshold. Mori, however, fails to teach indicating that the attention state is poor with a stronger stimulus or an output mode of further prompting a guide to a normal state as a degree of inappropriateness represented by the attention state is higher.
Nagasawa, however, teaches indicating that the attention state is poor with a stronger stimulus (outputting a display or warning when one or more conditions are satisfied for generating a stimulus, see e.g. para. [0189], wherein the outputted display is based on attention distracted state, see e.g. para. [0111]), Shashua, Mori and Nagasawa are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved safety.
As per claim 15, the driving assistance device according to claim 13 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Nagasawa, wherein the processor, in operation, determines a driving proficiency of the driver, and outputs the output information in an output mode corresponding to the attention state and the driving proficiency (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9, wherein cognitive state is a driving efficiency, wherein Mori also teaches detecting one or more actions of driver which correspond to attention state and/or driving proficiency, i.e. degree of eye opening, degree of concentration and so forth, see e.g. para. [0048]).
As per claim 16, the driving assistance device according to claim 14 as taught by Shashua and Mori, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs the output information in an output mode (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9) except the claimed strong stimulus that is noticeable even when a check is not made actively as the driving proficiency is lower, and outputs the output information in an output mode with a weak stimulus that is not noticeable when the check is not actively made and that is noticeable when the check is actively made, as the driving proficiency is higher.
Nagasawa, however, teaches strong stimulus that is noticeable even when a check is not made actively as the driving proficiency is lower (outputting a display or warning when one or more conditions are satisfied for generating a stimulus, see e.g. para. [0189], wherein the outputted display is based on attention distracted state, see e.g. para. [0111]), wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to output a weaker stimulus when attention state is higher to avoid sensory overload which can cause a hazardous situation. Shashua, Mori and Nagasawa are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved safety.
As per claim 17, the driving assistance device according to claim 15 as taught by Shashua, Mori and Nagasawa, wherein the processor, in operation, outputs the output information in an output mode (Mori teaches outputting information [in an output mode] based on the cognition state determination, see e.g. para. [0146] and step ST907, FIG. 9) with a strong stimulus that is noticeable even when a check is not made actively as the driving proficiency is lower, and outputs the output information in an output mode with a weak stimulus that is not noticeable when the check is not actively made and that is noticeable when the check is actively made, as the driving proficiency is higher (outputting a display or warning when one or more conditions are satisfied for generating a stimulus, see e.g. para. [0189], wherein the outputted display is based on attention distracted state, see e.g. para. [0111], wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to output a weaker stimulus when attention state is higher to avoid sensory overload which can cause a hazardous situation). Shashua, Mori and Nagasawa are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights