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 .
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon Japanese Patent Application JP2023-190687 filed on November 8, 2023 is duly noted by the examiner. However, no priority documents have been received by the USPTO. Please submit the priority documents to perfect the claim for priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 8, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 claim recites:
the detection of an abnormality sign of a driver,
acquire driving information, a collecting of traveling environment information,
acquiring predicted and actual visual lines,
calculating a visual line abnormality,
acquiring a predicted driving operation,
acquiring an actual driving operation,
calculating a driving operation abnormality degree,
calculating a traveling risk,
calculating a comprehensive abnormality degree, and
detecting the abnormality sign of a driver on condition.
These are data gathering and analysis steps culminating in a decision based on a threshold- activities that can be performed conceptually in the human mind or on paper and that involve mathematical relationships and calculations. The recitation of “detectors” and a “control circuit” does not on its face remove the claim from the abstract-idea realm. No specific improvement to the functioning of a computer, sensors, or another technology is articulated. The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Additionally, the elements of a control circuit and using sensors to gather driver gaze, driving operation, and environment information in a vehicle was well-understood, routine, conventional as of date of filing in advanced driver assistance/monitoring systems. Furthermore, combining multiple abnormality measures with a risk estimate via an unspecified “combining” operation and thresholding is a common analytics pattern and, without further technical detail, appears routine. The claim recites abstract data analysis and decision-making (mental processes/mathematical concepts), does not integrate those concepts into a practical application, and lacks additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claim recites:
a control circuit used for detecting an abnormality sign of a driver, driving information, and traveling environment information,
running a visual line model that outputs a predicted visual line,
run a driving operation prediction model that outputs a predicted driving operation value,
acquire an actual visual line,
calculate a visual line abnormality degree,
acquire an actual driving operation,
calculate a driving operation abnormality degree,
calculate a traveling risk,
calculate a comprehensive abnormality degree, and
detect the abnormality sign of the driver.
These are data gathering and analysis steps culminating in a decision based on a threshold- activities that can be performed conceptually in the human mind or on paper and that involve mathematical relationships and calculations. The recitation of “detecting”, “acquiring”, and a “control circuit” does not on its face remove the claim from the abstract-idea realm. No specific improvement to the functioning of a computer, sensors, or another technology is articulated. The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Additionally, the elements of a control circuit gathering driver gaze, driving operation, and environment information in a vehicle was well-understood, routine, conventional as of date of filing in advanced driver assistance/monitoring systems. Furthermore, combining multiple abnormality measures with a risk estimate via an unspecified “combining” operation and thresholding is a common analytics pattern and, without further technical detail, appears routine. The claim recites abstract data analysis and decision-making (mental processes/mathematical concepts), does not integrate those concepts into a practical application, and lacks additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claim elements lack additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites:
acquiring a predicted visual line,
acquiring an actual visual line of the driver,
calculate a visual line abnormality degree,
acquiring a predicted driving operation,
acquiring an actual driving operation,
calculating an actual driving operation,
calculating a driving operation abnormality degree,
calculating a traveling risk,
calculating a comprehensive abnormality degree, and
detecting an abnormality sign of the driver.
These are data gathering and analysis steps culminating in a decision based on a threshold- activities that can be performed conceptually in the human mind or on paper and that involve mathematical relationships and calculations. The recitations of “detecting”, “acquiring”, and a “control circuit” does not on its face remove the claim from the abstract-idea realm. No specific improvement to the functioning of a computer, sensors, or another technology is articulated. The claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Additionally, the elements of a control circuit and the gathering of driver gaze, driving operation, and environment information in a vehicle was well-understood, routine, conventional as of date of filing in advanced driver assistance/monitoring systems. Furthermore, combining multiple abnormality measures with a risk estimate via an unspecified “combining” operation and thresholding is a common analytics pattern and, without further technical detail, appears routine. The claim recites abstract data analysis and decision-making (mental processes/mathematical concepts), does not integrate those concepts into a practical application, and lacks additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0162219 to Stankoulov discloses the recording, monitoring, and analyzing of driver behavior.
U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0102166 to Filev et al. discloses a vehicle and method of advising a driver.
U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0152237 to Takahashi et al. discloses a vehicle control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. 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.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689