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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claim 1, 10, 17 is directed to a system, process, and product. Therefore, claims 1, 10, 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information system for a vehicle, the information system comprising a processor configured to:
determine system information representing one or more than one message relating to an occupant of the vehicle and/or the vehicle and/or an environment of the vehicle determine a current driving task of the vehicle;
determine, using sensor data representing a condition of a driver of the vehicle, driver information representing a physical and/or mental state of the driver; determine, using the current driving task and the driver information, message presentation information indicating, for each of the one or more than one message, whether the message is to be presented to the driver and/or how the message is to be presented to the driver and/or at what time the message is to be presented to the driver; and
generate control instructions to control at least one component of the vehicle according to the message presentation information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information system for a vehicle, the information system comprising a processor configured to:
determine system information representing one or more than one message relating to an occupant of the vehicle and/or the vehicle and/or an environment of the vehicle determine a current driving task of the vehicle;
determine, using sensor data representing a condition of a driver of the vehicle, driver information representing a physical and/or mental state of the driver;
determine, using the current driving task and the driver information, message presentation information indicating, for each of the one or more than one message, whether the message is to be presented to the driver and/or how the message is to be presented to the driver and/or at what time the message is to be presented to the driver; and
generate control instructions to control at least one component of the vehicle according to the message presentation information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “using sensor data, and “generate control instructions…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering drive data use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating control instructions step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving a sensor data” and “generating control instructions” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations “receiving a sensor data” and “generating control instructions” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner (US 2019/0322175) in view of Greene (US 2008/0309468)
As to claim 1 Kassner discloses an information system for a vehicle, the information system comprising a processor configured to:
determine system information representing one or more than one message relating to an occupant of the vehicle and/or the vehicle and/or an environment of the vehicle (Paragraph 13 “The aforementioned is achieved according to a first disclosed embodiment by a method for displaying information on a display device (e.g., of a transportation vehicle). The display device can be designed as an instrument cluster, a central information display, a head-up display, or similar.”)
determine a current driving task of the vehicle (Paragraph 29 “Only when the user 1 (as shown) directs their gaze at the screen 4 is the message 5 displayed, so as not to distract the user 1 from the driving task when he/she is in a demanding traffic situation.”);
determine, using the current driving task and the driver information, message presentation information indicating, for each of the one or more than one message, whether the message is to be presented to the driver and/or how the message is to be presented to the driver and/or at what time the message is to be presented to the driver (Paragraph 13 “In other words, it is determined by sensors that the display device has moved into the user's field of view. It can be provided in this case that the display device is being consciously viewed by the user and focused upon. In other words, the user shows that the information on the display device is (should be) perceived by him/her. In response thereto a message representing the information is displayed on the display device. In other words, the display of the message is delayed until the user looks at the display device, which can be determined, for example, using eye tracking, head orientation or “gaze tracking”. Although the information to be displayed has already been identified (much) earlier and its relevance for the user has been established, only in response to the identified possibility that the user can also perceive the message with a sufficient degree of probability is the message displayed on the display device.”); and
generate control instructions to control at least one component of the vehicle according to the message presentation information (Paragraph 13 “In other words, it is determined by sensors that the display device has moved into the user's field of view. It can be provided in this case that the display device is being consciously viewed by the user and focused upon. In other words, the user shows that the information on the display device is (should be) perceived by him/her. In response thereto a message representing the information is displayed on the display device. In other words, the display of the message is delayed until the user looks at the display device, which can be determined, for example, using eye tracking, head orientation or “gaze tracking”. Although the information to be displayed has already been identified (much) earlier and its relevance for the user has been established, only in response to the identified possibility that the user can also perceive the message with a sufficient degree of probability is the message displayed on the display device.”).
Kassner does not explicitly disclose determine, using sensor data representing a condition of a driver of the vehicle,
Greene teaches determine, using sensor data representing a condition of a driver of the vehicle(Paragraph 148 “Using a model-based approach, the specialized assessor fits the data to a pre-defined model and makes inferences about the underlying state. For example, from the principal's previous states, such as position and velocity, the system can learn about the attentiveness of drivers. The system then predicts the future states based on this inferred driver state, the current state of the principal, and the corresponding dynamics and driver mental state models.”),
driver information representing a physical and/or mental state of the driver(Paragraph 148 “Using a model-based approach, the specialized assessor fits the data to a pre-defined model and makes inferences about the underlying state. For example, from the principal's previous states, such as position and velocity, the system can learn about the attentiveness of drivers. The system then predicts the future states based on this inferred driver state, the current state of the principal, and the corresponding dynamics and driver mental state models.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kassner to include the teachings of evaluating a condition of a driver of the vehicle for the purpose of providing alerts and messages at the appropriate time.
As to claim 2 Kassner discloses an information system wherein the processor is configured to:
determine for each of the one or more than one message whether the message concerns the current driving task (Paragraph 13); and
if it is determined that a message does not concern the current driving task, determine whether a probability that the presentation of the message will cause the driver to control the vehicle less effectively is greater than or equal to a probability threshold value(Paragraph 13); and
wherein, if the processor determines that the probability is greater than or equal to the probability threshold value, the message presentation information indicate that the message is to not be presented or is to be presented with a time delay(Paragraph 13).
As to 9 Kassner discloses a vehicle comprising the information system of claim 1(Paragraph 13).
As to claim 10 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
Claims 3-6, 12-15,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner (US 2019/0322175) in view of Greene (US 2008/0309468) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bakhchina (US 2025/0313224)
As to claim 3 Bakhchina teaches an information system further comprising: an imaging unit configured to acquire image data which comprise at least one image showing the driver, wherein the sensor data comprise the image data (Paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kassner to include the teachings of acquiring image data for the purpose of gathering information of the driver.
As to claim 4 Bakhchina teaches an information system wherein the image data comprise video data representing continuous images of the driver, wherein the processor is configured to determine, using the image data, a frequency of a blinking of the driver; and wherein the driver information determined using the frequency of the blinking of the driver represents the physical and/or mental state (Paragraph 19-20).
As to claim 5 Kassner discloses an information system wherein the processor is configured to: using the image data, determine a viewing direction of the driver, wherein the driver information determined using the viewing direction represents the physical and/or mental state of the driver (Paragraph 14).
As to claim 6 Bakhchina teaches an information system further comprising:
a memory device storing, for one or more than one driver, respective associated identification data for identifying the driver and driver data(Paragraph 30),the driver data indicating a measure of a less effective vehicle control of the driver due to messages; wherein the processor is configured to: determine the driver of the vehicle using the image data and the identification data(Paragraph 30); and determine the message presentation information using the driver data associated with the driver(Paragraph 34).
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 15 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 19 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
Claims 7-8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassner (US 2019/0322175) in view of Greene (US 2008/0309468), and Bakhchina (US 2025/0313224) as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Molinska (US 2024/0115176)
As to claim 7 Molinska teaches an information system wherein the driver data associated with a respective driver indicate, for each driving task of a plurality of driving tasks, a respective measure of a less effective vehicle control of the driver due to messages(Paragraph 60); and wherein the processor is configured to determine the message presentation information using the driver data associated with the driver and the current driving task(Paragraph 60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Kassner to include the teachings of modifying the message presentation information for the purpose of reducing the stress of the driver.
As to claim 8 discloses an information system wherein the driver data associated with a respective driver indicate, for each presentation type of a plurality of presentation types, a respective measure of a less effective vehicle control of the driver due to messages(Paragraph 60); and wherein the processor is configured to determine which presentation type of the plurality of presentation types indicates the least amount of less effective vehicle control of the driver of the vehicle, wherein the message presentation information indicates for at least one message of the one or more than one message that the message should be presented according to the presentation type indicating the least amount of less effective vehicle control of the driver of the vehicle(Paragraph 60).
As to claim 16 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights