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 21August2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
1-20
102
1-2, 7-12, 14, 18-19
103
3-6, 13, 15-17, and 20
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-12, 14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deshpande US 20200122773.
Deshpande discloses,
Claim 1, 14, and 18; A vehicle(10) comprising: at least one processor([0021] the control system 110 includes any suitable processing, or computing device); and at least one memory that stores executable instructions([0021] In an example embodiment, the collision avoidance logic 120 includes hardware, software, or a combination thereof, there must be a storage component to store the software) that, when executed by the at least one processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: obtaining first data indicative of at least one driving parameter of a vehicle([0022] The current driving conditions are monitored); obtaining second data indicative of a driver awareness of a driver of the vehicle([0029] Indicates that the car is monitoring the awareness of the driver based on other inputs such as gas pedal engagement); initiating a driver responsiveness check based on the first data and the second data([0031] In an example embodiment, upon determining that the threat level has escalated to the second level, the control system 110 performs step 214 which includes determining if the vehicle is accelerating and the status of a surrounding vehicle, [0032] At step 214, in an example embodiment, the control system 110 is configured to trigger an alert or a notification via the indicator system 180); and initiating a safety procedure if the driver responsiveness check is indicative of a fail of the driver responsiveness check([0032] After more than one alert, the control system performs step 2016, [0033] At step 216, in an example embodiment, the control system 110 determines if the driver is taking sufficient action to control the vehicle 10).
Claims 2 and 19; Wherein the at least one driving parameter is at least one of a speed or an acceleration of the vehicle([0004] In an example embodiment, a method includes receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors associated with a subject vehicle. The sensor data indicates at least (a) a speed of the subject vehicle, and The method includes generating acceleration data to prepare the subject vehicle for an acceleration action based on the evaluation of the sensor data).
Claim 7; Wherein the initiating of the driver responsiveness check is further based on: the at least one driving parameter exceeding a driving parameter threshold for a time period, or at least one driver awareness parameter of the second data exceeding a driver awareness threshold or satisfying a driver awareness criterion for a time period([0029] Alternatively, if the control system 110 does not receive driver controls or does not receive driver controls above the predetermined threshold during this time, then the control system 110 proceeds to step 210 since sufficient driver intervention has not been communicated to the control system 110 via the driving control system 190).
Claim 8; Wherein the driver responsiveness check is configured for outputting at least one signal indicative of the driver responsiveness check by at least one user interface of the vehicle([0032] the control system 110 is configured to trigger an alert or a notification via the indicator system 180. In an example embodiment, the indicator system 180 is configured to provide any suitable and effective alert, notification, or communication, which may be visual, audio, haptic, sensory, or any combination thereof).
Claim 9; Wherein the driver responsiveness check is passed if a response from the driver is received by at least one user interface of the vehicle within a time limit after the at least one signal has been output([0029] Discloses that the ECU 100 receives driver controls via driving control system 190 (e.g., a gas pedal, a brake, a steering wheel, etc.) responsive to the driver's actions and upon receiving driving controls above a predetermined threshold from the driving control system 190, the control system 110 performs the driving controls and proceeds to step 206).
Claim 10; Wherein the driver responsiveness check is failed if a response from the driver is not received by the at least one user interface within a time limit([0029] Discloses that the ECU 100 receives driver controls via driving control system 190 (e.g., a gas pedal, a brake, a steering wheel, etc.) responsive to the driver's actions and if the control system 110 does not receive driver controls or does not receive driver controls above the predetermined threshold during this time, then the control system 110 proceeds to step 210 since sufficient driver intervention has not been communicated to the control system 110 via the driving control system 190).
Claim 11; Wherein the second data is indicative of the driver awareness of the driver during acceleration of the vehicle or during a time at which the at least one driving parameter exceeds a driving parameter threshold([0029] In this regard, by evaluating the driver controls to at least predetermined threshold criteria after the first threat level has been set, the, control system 110 is configured to check for a confirmed driving action (e.g., gas pedal is engaged by a certain amount) to conclude that the driver is aware and responding to the threat than just merely and slightly pressing the gas pedal in a nonchalant manner).
Claim 12; Wherein the driver awareness relates to one or more of the driver having or not having hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle, a steering behavior of the driver, the driver looking onto a road being travelled by the vehicle or not, a posture of the driver, a facial color of the driver, a gaze behavior of the driver, a heartrate of the driver, a breathing behavior of the driver, a blood pressure of the driver, or a facial expression of the driver([0029] the ECU 100 receives driver controls via driving control system 190 (e.g., a gas pedal, a brake, a steering wheel, etc.) responsive to the driver's actions).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande US 20200122773 in view of Otake US 20180037112.
Regarding claim(s) 3-6, 13, 15-17, and 20, Deshpande discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1, 14, and 18.
However, Deshpande fails to disclose:
Claims 3 and 15; Further comprising: setting, by the device, a limit for at least one of a speed or an acceleration of the vehicle based on the first data and the second data.
Claims 4 and 16; Further comprising: disabling, by the device, the limit if the driver responsiveness check is indicative of a pass of the driver responsiveness check.
Claims 5 and 17; Further comprising: initiating, by the device, outputting of at least one signal indicative of the limit by at least one user interface of the vehicle.
Claims 6 and 20; Further comprising: based on the first data or the second data: disabling, by the device, deactivation of at least one safety system of the vehicle, or enabling, by the device, at least one safety system of the vehicle.
Claim 13; Wherein the safety procedure is configured for stopping the vehicle.
Otake teaches a similar device in the same field of driver attentiveness systems.
Otake teaches,
Claims 4 and 16; Further comprising: disabling, by the device, the limit if the driver responsiveness check is indicative of a pass of the driver responsiveness check(Fig. 4 shows that if the tentative abnormality flag is set to no, the speed is maintained and the limit is disabled).
Claims 5 and 17; Further comprising: initiating, by the device, outputting of at least one signal indicative of the limit by at least one user interface of the vehicle([0106] Discloses an alert and a display of the operating state).
Claims 6 and 20; Further comprising: based on the first data or the second data: disabling, by the device, deactivation of at least one safety system of the vehicle, or enabling, by the device, at least one safety system of the vehicle(Fig. 4 shows that based on how tentative the driver is, the system will disable the speed limiter or enable the speed limiter based on how tentative the driver is and how fast the vehicle is moving).
Claim 13; Wherein the safety procedure is configured for stopping the vehicle([0010] decelerating means (10, 30, 31, 40, 41, step 550) for decelerating the vehicle to automatically stop the vehicle after a conclusive abnormality determination time point which is a time point when the abnormality monitoring means finalizes a determination that the driver is in the abnormal state).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include setting, by the device, a limit for at least one of a speed or an acceleration of the vehicle based on the first data and the second data, disabling, by the device, the limit if the driver responsiveness check is indicative of a pass of the driver responsiveness check, initiating, by the device, outputting of at least one signal indicative of the limit by at least one user interface of the vehicle, and based on the first data or the second data: disabling, by the device, deactivation of at least one safety system of the vehicle, or enabling, by the device, at least one safety system of the vehicle as taught by Otake, for the purpose of forcing a safer driving condition if the driver isn't paying attention.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the safety procedure is configured for stopping the vehicle as taught by Otake, for the purpose of preventing an accident.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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 C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669