DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-5, 14, and 37) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 has been amended and the restricted claims are not in separate classifications. This is not found persuasive because the amendment of claim 1 does not overcome the restriction, and the restricted claims are in separate classifications and are directed to separate utility.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Pursuant to the election filed May 26, 2026, claims 1-5, 14, and 37 are pending. The applicant has amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the processing unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, does not disclose, “a processing unit.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 14, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levkova et al. (US 2019/0152390 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Levkova discloses:
an apparatus ([0004]; FIG. 2) comprising:
a camera configured to view a driver of a vehicle ([0014]; FIG. 2: S110);
a speed detector configured to determine a speed of the vehicle ([0029]);
an event detector configured to detect an event based on images from the camera ([0017], [0050], [0057]);
Levkova does not explicitly disclose a timer configured to time a duration of the event detected based on the images from the camera, but Levkova does disclose that an imminent collision is determined from sampling images for a predetermined duration ([0029], [0061], [0062], [0071]), which suggests that the apparatus of Levkova comprises a timer for the benefit of enabling the apparatus to determine the occasion of an imminent collision ([0017]);
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the apparatus of Levkova in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the apparatus to determine the occasion of an imminent collision;
a sensor configured to sense a characteristic outside the vehicle ([0017]; FIG. 2: S110) and
an alert generator configured to provide an alert signal when the duration of the event detected based on the images from the camera satisfies a duration criterion ([0017], [0026], [0042], [0050]) and when the speed of the vehicle satisfies a speed criterion ([0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Levkova discloses that the event is a distraction event ([0030], [0048], [0050]), and the processing unit is configured to detect the distraction event based on the images from the camera ([0030], [0048], [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Levkova discloses that the duration criterion comprises a minimum duration, and the speed criterion comprises a minimum speed. ([0029], [0062])
Regarding claim 4, Levkova discloses that the alert generator is configured to provide the alert signal when the duration of the distracted event detected based on the images from the camera is at least the minimum duration ([0062]), and when the speed of the vehicle is at least the minimum speed ([0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Levkova discloses that alert generator is configured to provide the alert signal when the duration of the distracted event detected based on the images from the camera is at least the minimum duration, and when the speed of the vehicle is at least the minimum speed. (See the rejection of claim 4)
Levkova does not explicitly disclose that the minimum duration is 5 seconds, but Levkova does disclose a minimum duration (see above), and Levkova does disclose a predetermined time period for sampling images to determine driver distraction ([0062]), which suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined through routine experimentation to set the minimum time at 5 seconds for the benefit of choosing a minimum time that would enable sufficient sampling to determine driver distraction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the apparatus of Levkova in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the apparatus to employ a minimum time that would enable sufficient sampling to determine driver distraction.
Levkova does not explicitly disclose that the minimum speed is 5 mph, but Levkova does disclose a minimum speed (see above), and Levkova does disclose a threshold velocity for triggering activation of cameras for detecting events during driving of the vehicle, which suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined through routine experimentation to set the minimum speed at 5 mph for the benefit of setting a threshold velocity that will trigger activation of cameras during driving of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the apparatus of Levkova in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the apparatus to set a threshold velocity that will trigger activation of cameras during driving of the vehicle.
and wherein the alert generator is configured to provide the alert signal when the duration of the distracted event detected based on the images from the camera is at least 5 seconds, and when the speed of the vehicle is at least 5 mph.
With the minimum duration set at 5 seconds and the minimum speed set at 5 mph, the alert generator of Levkova would provide the alert signal when the duration of the distracted event detected based on the images from the camera is at least 5 seconds, and when the speed of the vehicle is at least 5 mph.
Regarding claim 14, Levkova discloses that the alert signal comprises a sequence of two or more warnings. ([0017], [0026], [0073])
Regarding claim 37, Levkova discloses that the apparatus is configured to provide coaching when the detected event persists for an event duration that is above an event duration threshold. ([0019])
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights