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 .
This is a Final Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on May 20th, 2026 has been considered and entered. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4, 12-13, and 15 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
The contingent limitations of claims 4 and 15 has been overcome due to the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 has been overcome due to the applicant’s amendments.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a physiological sensor suite configured to identify” in at least claim 1
“the allergen sensitivity detection module includes instructions configured to cause” in at least claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification provides corresponding structure for the physiological sensor suite in at least paragraph 14.
The specification provides corresponding structure for the allergen sensitivity detection module in at least paragraphs 30-33.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner (DE 102014223774 A1) (“Langner”) (Translation Attached) in view of Weast (US 20150032266 A1) (“Weast”).
With respect to claim 1, Langner teaches a vehicle comprising: a controller having a processor and a memory, the controller including
an allergen sensitivity detection module; a physiological sensor suite configured to identify a physiological response of an occupant (See at least Langner Paragraph 27 “The system for acquiring the data can furthermore comprise at least one of the following devices … a sensor system, by means of which state variables of the vehicle occupant can be detected, in particular state variables relating to allergic symptoms such as, for example, sneezing, swabbing, redness and/or swellings on eyes and/or nose, and/or a pollen sensor system”);
an air quality sensor suite including air quality sensors (See at least Langner Paragraph 18 “With the invention, the collection of air samples and/or pollen can thus advantageously be adapted and at least partially automatically carried out, wherein a large number of further data can be correlated with the collected pollen during the collection. Data on pollen, such as pollen species, pollen concentration, etc., which can be determined, for example, during the trip or in the vehicle or can be determined subsequently in a laboratory, can thus be used to perform a person-specific evaluation for the respective vehicle occupant, which evaluation is based on a widely informed database. This can be done in particular using correspondingly correlated geographical data, temporal data, weather data and/or data of pollen flight services. As a result, medical diagnoses and therapy approaches for the respective vehicle occupant can be intensively supported and, if appropriate, also improved.”);
at least one camera defining a field of view including the occupant (See at least Langner Paragraph 28 “The indicated sensor system for detecting a state variable of the vehicle occupant can be an optical sensor or a camera, by means of which the face of the driver is recorded completely or partially and recorded images and/or video sequences are evaluated with regard to allergic symptoms, as described at the beginning, e.g. swellings or redness at eyes or nose, swabbing, sneezing, etc. An acoustic sensor or a microphone or a pressure sensor can also be provided, which can be integrated e.g. in a seat, in particular in the driver's seat, the backrest or headrest thereof, for detecting a sneezing movement. Sneezing can also be detected, for example, by means of a moisture sensor, inflammation at the nose and/or eye by means of an infrared (IR) sensor. A haptic sensor can also be provided.”); and
wherein the allergen sensitivity detection module includes instructions configured to cause the processor to detect a physiological response of the occupant, identify a correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and a detected allergen, and generate a response to the identified correlation (See at least Langner Paragraphs 17-19 “The invention is based on the finding that relatively large geographical areas can be traversed by a motor vehicle in a relatively short time and that the associated disadvantage that a pollen flight area is possibly traversed, by means of which allergic reactions can be triggered in vehicle occupants, can also be exploited in contrast to the benefit of the vehicle occupants. In this case, it has also been recognized within the scope of the invention that infrastructure already present in a motor vehicle, such as an interior camera, or a microphone of a hands-free device or a pressure sensor of a seat occupancy recognition system, can advantageously also be used to automatically determine allergic reactions of a vehicle occupant and that, using signals from such devices, it is advantageously possible to collect pollen in the region of the vehicle in a targeted manner in situations with detected allergic reactions. Thus, with the invention, an allergy test can be advantageously carried out under real conditions of the everyday life. The invention can also be used in particular to maintain or even improve the driving ability of a vehicle driver. With the invention, the collection of air samples and/or pollen can thus advantageously be adapted and at least partially automatically carried out, wherein a large number of further data can be correlated with the collected pollen during the collection. Data on pollen, such as pollen species, pollen concentration, etc., which can be determined, for example, during the trip or in the vehicle or can be determined subsequently in a laboratory, can thus be used to perform a person-specific evaluation for the respective vehicle occupant, which evaluation is based on a widely informed database. This can be done in particular using correspondingly correlated geographical data, temporal data, weather data and/or data of pollen flight services. As a result, medical diagnoses and therapy approaches for the respective vehicle occupant can be intensively supported and, if appropriate, also improved. With the invention, the driving safety can be increased and the driver comfort can be increased, in particular for vehicle drivers who are allergic, because it enables a vehicle-side control system to detect allergic reactions of the vehicle driver at an early stage and to initiate suitable measures for alleviating the allergic reactions independently or with involvement of the vehicle driver. This advantage is of great importance in particular when the vehicle driver has forgeted to take an allergy medicament before the start of a trip or when his sensitivity to allergy is unknown up to now. The driving comfort can be increased in this case in particular in the case of vehicles which have a sliding roof or a top. The invention makes it possible to drive when the sliding roof or top is open and, when an allergic reaction occurs or is dangerous, to prompt the vehicle driver to close the sliding roof or top or to close it fully automatically. Within the scope of the invention, other measures can also be initiated, such as changing a travel route or outputting a message or recommendation for engaging a break in the drive and/or a change in the driver” | Paragraph 28 “The indicated sensor system for detecting a state variable of the vehicle occupant can be an optical sensor or a camera, by means of which the face of the driver is recorded completely or partially and recorded images and/or video sequences are evaluated with regard to allergic symptoms, as described at the beginning, e.g. swellings or redness at eyes or nose, swabbing, sneezing, etc. An acoustic sensor or a microphone or a pressure sensor can also be provided, which can be integrated e.g. in a seat, in particular in the driver's seat, the backrest or headrest thereof, for detecting a sneezing movement. Sneezing can also be detected, for example, by means of a moisture sensor, inflammation at the nose and/or eye by means of an infrared (IR) sensor. A haptic sensor can also be provided.”).
Langner however, fails to explicitly disclose that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet.
Weast teaches that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet (See at least Weast FIG. 2 and Paragraph 11 “Embodiments of apparatus and methods for adaptive control of air quality in a vehicle compartment are described herein. In embodiments, an apparatus may include a sensor interface configured to interface with one or more sensors, disposed at multiple locations at one or more sides or in an interior space of a vehicle compartment, e.g., an automobile compartment, and configured to measure one or more indicators of air quality, e.g., levels of pollutants, at the plurality of locations. The apparatus may further include one or more airflow controllers configured to adaptively control multiple ventilation components, such as inlets/outlets or closable openings (e.g., windows or sunroof), of the vehicle compartment to regulate airflow in the interior space, based at least in part on the measured indicators of air quality.” | Paragraph 30 “Next, at block 230, airflow may be adjusted through one or more ventilation components of the enclosed space based at least in part on the air quality measurements, e.g., by controllers 130. In embodiments, ventilation components 110 may include ventilation inlets/outlets, closable openings, blowers/fans, and/or other ventilation devices/structures. In embodiments, to adjust airflow, controllers 130 may be configured to connect or disconnect air space of the enclosed space of a vehicle compartment with the ambient air space external to the vehicle compartment. As an example, a constant through-flow of fresh outside air may be injected into an automobile in normal situation to keep the interior atmosphere pleasant even with all the windows shut. However, when sensor 120 detected unpleasant odors around the automobile, controllers 130 may shut off the valve of the inlet/outlet, thus insulate the enclosed space within the automobile from outside odors. On the other hand, once outside air quality returned to be normal, controller 130 may turn on the valve of the inlet, and allow fresh air coming into the automobile again.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner to include that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet, as taught by Weast as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient airflow following a detection of an allergen (Weast Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure relates generally to the technical field of control systems, and more particularly, to apparatuses and methods for adaptive interior air quality control for vehicle compartment.”).
With respect to claim 2, and similarly claim 13, Langner in view of Weast teaches that the response generated includes at least one of outputting an allergen sensitivity report to the occupant, notifying a first responder, rerouting a vehicle navigation system, and operating the vehicle to a medical provider using an autonomous driving system (See at least Langner Paragraph 39 “Based on the result of an evaluation as to whether an allergic reaction of the vehicle occupant is present, a corresponding warning signal can be output and/or a route recommendation for a route can be created and optionally output by a navigation system of the vehicle, on which recommended route can be expected to be subjected to a lower load on the vehicle occupant with allergenic influences, in particular with less pollen flight. In this case, in particular on the basis of person-specific historical data, person-specific evaluation with respect to respective specific pollen types can also be carried out and data can be output in accordance with a person-specific recommendation for the alternative route.”).
With respect to claim 9, Langner in view of Weast teaches that the physiological sensor suite includes biosensors, cameras, microphones, and lidar sensors (See at least Langner Paragraph 28 “The indicated sensor system for detecting a state variable of the vehicle occupant can be an optical sensor or a camera, by means of which the face of the driver is recorded completely or partially and recorded images and/or video sequences are evaluated with regard to allergic symptoms, as described at the beginning, e.g. swellings or redness at eyes or nose, swabbing, sneezing, etc. An acoustic sensor or a microphone or a pressure sensor can also be provided, which can be integrated e.g. in a seat, in particular in the driver's seat, the backrest or headrest thereof, for detecting a sneezing movement. Sneezing can also be detected, for example, by means of a moisture sensor, inflammation at the nose and/or eye by means of an infrared (IR) sensor. A haptic sensor can also be provided. In particular, components for detecting protective reflex reactions or components described in DE 10 2012 009 833 A1 mentioned at the beginning or components for determining respiratory air parameters etc. described in DE 10 2008 064 107 A can also be used. These two publications are referred to again at this point for this purpose.”).
With respect to claim 10, and similarly claim 20, Langner in view of Weast teaches that the allergen sensitivity detection module includes instructions configured to cause the processor to iterate identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and a detected allergen, generate a response to the identified correlation at a predetermined interval (See at least Langner Paragraphs 33-34 “During the recording and/or the storage of pollen, at least one of the following further data can preferably be acquired and/or stored: geodata, in particular coordinates of the current location of the vehicle, wherein georeferenced data can be formed, time data such as the current date and/or the current time, health and/or status data of the vehicle occupant, weather data, which are provided for example by a weather service and are optionally retrieved, in or on the vehicle, in particular data detected by means of vehicle sensors, such as external temperature, air pressure, air humidity, wind speed, etc. Based on the detected and/or stored pollen samples and, for example, data printed on the sample containers or adhesive strips, in particular. In downstream processes, further comparisons can be made with time and location data, for example by means of data from pollen flight measurement stations mounted stationary in the respective area traversed. Control measurements can also be made.” | Paragraph 66 “The respective data, in particular data at the time, route or whereabouts of the vehicle, and pollen and/or weather data are stored in the control device 2, in particular in the memory 11 of the health data. Sensory data and in particular data relating to recognized allergy symptoms such as, for example, the frequency of sneezing or else images of the face, eyes and/or nose are also stored in the memory 11.”).
With respect to claim 11, Langner in view of Weast teaches that the allergen sensitivity detection module includes instructions configured to cause the processor to continuously detect a physiological response of the occupant and monitor allergen levels (See at least Langner Paragraphs 33-34 “During the recording and/or the storage of pollen, at least one of the following further data can preferably be acquired and/or stored: geodata, in particular coordinates of the current location of the vehicle, wherein georeferenced data can be formed, time data such as the current date and/or the current time, health and/or status data of the vehicle occupant, weather data, which are provided for example by a weather service and are optionally retrieved, in or on the vehicle, in particular data detected by means of vehicle sensors, such as external temperature, air pressure, air humidity, wind speed, etc. Based on the detected and/or stored pollen samples and, for example, data printed on the sample containers or adhesive strips, in particular. In downstream processes, further comparisons can be made with time and location data, for example by means of data from pollen flight measurement stations mounted stationary in the respective area traversed. Control measurements can also be made.” | Paragraph 64 “During travel, the vehicle driver is recorded with the camera 7 and sounds in the interior of the vehicle are recorded with the microphone 8. Further sensors such as moisture sensors, pressure sensors, etc. can be provided in the vehicle interior. The sensor data recorded in each case are evaluated in the control device 3 with respect to predefined reference values or reference patterns, such as reference symptom images of allergic reactions of the vehicle driver, in order to detect any allergic reactions of the vehicle driver that have occurred during the journey. In this case, person-specific health data of the vehicle driver can also be read from the data memory 11 and used, for example data which indicate that the relevant vehicle driver or vehicle occupant usually has predominantly the eyes or predominantly the nose affected by allergic symptoms or that the relevant person has predominantly noness irritation. Then, for example, by means of camera signals and/or microphone signals, which indicate that the vehicle driver frequently smuts and/or does not sneeze when driving through a pollen flight area, an allergic reaction can be concluded. The data memory 11 can also contain data independent of persons which are used for the assignment or identification of allergy symptoms, for example a database which interacts with an expert system provided in the control device.” | Paragraph 66 “The respective data, in particular data at the time, route or whereabouts of the vehicle, and pollen and/or weather data are stored in the control device 2, in particular in the memory 11 of the health data. Sensory data and in particular data relating to recognized allergy symptoms such as, for example, the frequency of sneezing or else images of the face, eyes and/or nose are also stored in the memory 11.”).
With respect to claim 12, Langner teaches method for monitoring an allergen sensitivity of a vehicle occupant comprising:
detecting a physiological response of the occupant using a physiological sensor suite of the vehicle (See at least Langner Paragraph 27 “The system for acquiring the data can furthermore comprise at least one of the following devices … a sensor system, by means of which state variables of the vehicle occupant can be detected, in particular state variables relating to allergic symptoms such as, for example, sneezing, swabbing, redness and/or swellings on eyes and/or nose, and/or a pollen sensor system”);
detecting a magnitude of at least one allergen in the vehicle using an air quality sensor suite of the vehicle (See at least Langner Paragraph 18 “With the invention, the collection of air samples and/or pollen can thus advantageously be adapted and at least partially automatically carried out, wherein a large number of further data can be correlated with the collected pollen during the collection. Data on pollen, such as pollen species, pollen concentration, etc., which can be determined, for example, during the trip or in the vehicle or can be determined subsequently in a laboratory, can thus be used to perform a person-specific evaluation for the respective vehicle occupant, which evaluation is based on a widely informed database. This can be done in particular using correspondingly correlated geographical data, temporal data, weather data and/or data of pollen flight services. As a result, medical diagnoses and therapy approaches for the respective vehicle occupant can be intensively supported and, if appropriate, also improved.”);
identifying a correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected magnitude of the at least one allergen using a controller of the vehicle; and implementing a vehicle response to the identified correlation using the controller (See at least Langner Paragraphs 17-19 “The invention is based on the finding that relatively large geographical areas can be traversed by a motor vehicle in a relatively short time and that the associated disadvantage that a pollen flight area is possibly traversed, by means of which allergic reactions can be triggered in vehicle occupants, can also be exploited in contrast to the benefit of the vehicle occupants. In this case, it has also been recognized within the scope of the invention that infrastructure already present in a motor vehicle, such as an interior camera, or a microphone of a hands-free device or a pressure sensor of a seat occupancy recognition system, can advantageously also be used to automatically determine allergic reactions of a vehicle occupant and that, using signals from such devices, it is advantageously possible to collect pollen in the region of the vehicle in a targeted manner in situations with detected allergic reactions. Thus, with the invention, an allergy test can be advantageously carried out under real conditions of the everyday life. The invention can also be used in particular to maintain or even improve the driving ability of a vehicle driver. With the invention, the collection of air samples and/or pollen can thus advantageously be adapted and at least partially automatically carried out, wherein a large number of further data can be correlated with the collected pollen during the collection. Data on pollen, such as pollen species, pollen concentration, etc., which can be determined, for example, during the trip or in the vehicle or can be determined subsequently in a laboratory, can thus be used to perform a person-specific evaluation for the respective vehicle occupant, which evaluation is based on a widely informed database. This can be done in particular using correspondingly correlated geographical data, temporal data, weather data and/or data of pollen flight services. As a result, medical diagnoses and therapy approaches for the respective vehicle occupant can be intensively supported and, if appropriate, also improved. With the invention, the driving safety can be increased and the driver comfort can be increased, in particular for vehicle drivers who are allergic, because it enables a vehicle-side control system to detect allergic reactions of the vehicle driver at an early stage and to initiate suitable measures for alleviating the allergic reactions independently or with involvement of the vehicle driver. This advantage is of great importance in particular when the vehicle driver has forgeted to take an allergy medicament before the start of a trip or when his sensitivity to allergy is unknown up to now. The driving comfort can be increased in this case in particular in the case of vehicles which have a sliding roof or a top. The invention makes it possible to drive when the sliding roof or top is open and, when an allergic reaction occurs or is dangerous, to prompt the vehicle driver to close the sliding roof or top or to close it fully automatically. Within the scope of the invention, other measures can also be initiated, such as changing a travel route or outputting a message or recommendation for engaging a break in the drive and/or a change in the driver” | Paragraph 28 “The indicated sensor system for detecting a state variable of the vehicle occupant can be an optical sensor or a camera, by means of which the face of the driver is recorded completely or partially and recorded images and/or video sequences are evaluated with regard to allergic symptoms, as described at the beginning, e.g. swellings or redness at eyes or nose, swabbing, sneezing, etc. An acoustic sensor or a microphone or a pressure sensor can also be provided, which can be integrated e.g. in a seat, in particular in the driver's seat, the backrest or headrest thereof, for detecting a sneezing movement. Sneezing can also be detected, for example, by means of a moisture sensor, inflammation at the nose and/or eye by means of an infrared (IR) sensor. A haptic sensor can also be provided.”).
Langner however, fails to explicitly disclose that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet.
Weast teaches that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet (See at least Weast FIG. 2 and Paragraph 11 “Embodiments of apparatus and methods for adaptive control of air quality in a vehicle compartment are described herein. In embodiments, an apparatus may include a sensor interface configured to interface with one or more sensors, disposed at multiple locations at one or more sides or in an interior space of a vehicle compartment, e.g., an automobile compartment, and configured to measure one or more indicators of air quality, e.g., levels of pollutants, at the plurality of locations. The apparatus may further include one or more airflow controllers configured to adaptively control multiple ventilation components, such as inlets/outlets or closable openings (e.g., windows or sunroof), of the vehicle compartment to regulate airflow in the interior space, based at least in part on the measured indicators of air quality.” | Paragraph 30 “Next, at block 230, airflow may be adjusted through one or more ventilation components of the enclosed space based at least in part on the air quality measurements, e.g., by controllers 130. In embodiments, ventilation components 110 may include ventilation inlets/outlets, closable openings, blowers/fans, and/or other ventilation devices/structures. In embodiments, to adjust airflow, controllers 130 may be configured to connect or disconnect air space of the enclosed space of a vehicle compartment with the ambient air space external to the vehicle compartment. As an example, a constant through-flow of fresh outside air may be injected into an automobile in normal situation to keep the interior atmosphere pleasant even with all the windows shut. However, when sensor 120 detected unpleasant odors around the automobile, controllers 130 may shut off the valve of the inlet/outlet, thus insulate the enclosed space within the automobile from outside odors. On the other hand, once outside air quality returned to be normal, controller 130 may turn on the valve of the inlet, and allow fresh air coming into the automobile again.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified method of Langner to include that the generated response includes at least changing a vehicle airflow by altering an operation of at least one of a vehicle air intake and a vehicle air outlet, as taught by Weast as disclosed above, in order to ensure efficient airflow following a detection of an allergen (Weast Paragraph 1 “The present disclosure relates generally to the technical field of control systems, and more particularly, to apparatuses and methods for adaptive interior air quality control for vehicle compartment.”).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner (DE 102014223774 A1) (“Langner”) (Translation Attached) in view of Weast (US 20150032266 A1) (“Weast”) further in view of McBrady (US 20220293261 A1) (“McBrady”).
With respect to claim 3, and similarly claim 14, Langner in view of Weast fails to explicitly disclose that the response generated is dependent on a severity of the physiological response.
McBrady, however, teaches that the response generated is dependent on a severity of the physiological response (See at least McBrady Paragraph 61 “In various examples, the RVDAS may be advantageously employed to aid users in diagnosing allergen sensitivities. As the number of user/patient with known irritant sensitivities included in the RVDAS increases, the accuracy and resolution of the RVDAS increases as well. As the sensitivity of the airflow sensor and or the pressure sensor within the CPAP increases, the distinction between various user reactions may become greater. This increased user reaction distinction may advantageously increase the number of possible irritants that may be detected, and may provide users with a severity level of their allergies. Knowing the severity level of a user's allergies may allow doctors to prescribe medication dosages more accurately. In some instances, the severity level of the user's allergies may allow doctors to prescribe more appropriate types of medication or therapies.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner in view of Weast to include that the response generated is dependent on a severity of the physiological response, as taught by McBrady as disclosed above, in order to ensure a sufficient response is generated (McBrady Paragraph 6 “ Various results may advantageously indicate specific allergen conditions in an area based on monitoring of a population of users of CPAP machines or other devices in widespread use.”).
Claims 4, 7-8, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner (DE 102014223774 A1) (“Langner”) (Translation Attached) in view of Weast (US 20150032266 A1) (“Weast”) further in view of Barcia (US 20250118184 A1) (“Barcia”).
With respect to claim 4, and similarly claim 15, Langner in view of Weast fails to explicitly disclose that the identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen comprises scoring a severity of the physiological response on a physiological response scale, normalizing a detected magnitude of at least one allergen to the physiological response scale, and determining a physiological response score exceeds a threshold and the normalized magnitude of the at least one allergen exceeds the threshold, and identifying a correlation between the physiological response and the at least one allergen.
Barcia, however, teaches that the identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen comprises scoring a severity of the physiological response on a physiological response scale, normalizing a detected magnitude of at least one allergen to the physiological response scale (See at least Barcia Paragraph 151 “In some embodiments, passenger wellness data may include biophysical data of the passenger. In some embodiments, biophysical data of the passenger may be collected or otherwise monitored through one or more biophysical sensors, such as sensors implementable in a vehicle. Sensors may be located at various locations in or on the vehicle, in the car seats, in the child car seats, in the belts, on the steering wheel, mirrors, etc. In some embodiments, sensors may be in contact with, or worn by, the passenger to monitor or collect biophysical data. For example, a sensor may be a heart rate sensor embedded in a seatbelt of the vehicle and configured to provide a heart rate reading of the heart rate of the passenger as biophysical data when the seatbelt is engaged with or worn by the driver. As another example, a sensor may be a blood pressure sensor disposed on an armrest of a vehicle seat of the vehicle and configured to provide a blood pressure reading of the blood pressure of the passenger when the passenger places his or her arm on the armrest. Likewise, sensors may include a thermometer, a respiratory rate monitor, a blood glucose monitor, or the like, to provide biophysical data of the passenger, such as a body temperature reading, a respiration reading, a blood glucose reading, or the like. In some embodiments, sensors may include a video camera or an infrared image sensor to capture video(s) and/or image(s) of the passenger and provide imagery data indicative of a body movement, an eye movement, or a facial distortion of the passenger as biophysical data. Using facial detection or other image processing techniques, a processor may analyze the video(s) or image(s) and accordingly determine the emergency situation and its severity. For example, sensors may include a video camera, and processors may analyze a video received from the video camera and find that the passenger may have passed out in the vehicle seat when the passenger movement is not detected. The processor may determine this condition to be very likely an emergency related to the health of the passenger, of which the emergency severity may be given a scale of 1-10, where 10 being very severe or life threatening”), and determining a physiological response score exceeds a threshold and the normalized magnitude of the at least one allergen exceeds the threshold, and identifying a correlation between the physiological response and the at least one allergen (See at least Barcia Paragraph 153 “Additionally, or alternatively, in some embodiments, the processors may determine emergency severity based on a correlation among passenger wellness data, vehicle motion data, driver wellness data and/or driver distraction or distress data. The vehicle motion data may include various motion parameters of the vehicle, such as a speed of the vehicle, a moving direction of the vehicle, and/or a distance between the vehicle and a nearby object. Motion data of the vehicle may be collected or otherwise monitored through one or more motion detectors positioned in or on the vehicle. The motion detectors may include one or more of a speedometer, a global positioning device, a video camera, and a proximity sensor.” | Paragraph 234 “As shown at 1004, the system may extract features from the received data according to a machine learning model. The machine learning model is able to automatically do so based on what it learned during the training process. In an embodiment, appropriate weights that were learned during the training process may be applied to the features. At step 1008, the machine learning model, based on the features of the received data, may generate a score representing a likelihood or confidence that the received data is associated with a particular event type, e.g., health emergency due to choking, health emergency due to hypoxemia, or simply health emergency, etc. As shown at 1010, the system may determine whether the score is sufficiently high relative to a threshold or criteria to warrant certain action. If the score is not sufficiently high, thus indicating that the detected event may not have actually occurred (in other words, a false-positive), the system may return to step 1002 and continue to monitor subsequent incoming data. On the other hand, if the score is sufficiently high, then at step 1012 the system may generate an appropriate alert and/or determine an appropriate action/response. In an embodiment, the system may send alerts to appropriate recipients based on the detected event types.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner in view of Weast to include that the identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen comprises scoring a severity of the physiological response on a physiological response scale, normalizing a detected magnitude of at least one allergen to the physiological response scale, and determining a physiological response score exceeds a threshold and the normalized magnitude of the at least one allergen exceeds the threshold, and identifying a correlation between the physiological response and the at least one allergen, as taught by Barcia as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate detection of allergens (Barcia “There needs to be a system that can monitor and provide suggestions when a health issue is detected.”).
With respect to claim 7, and similarly claim 18, Langner in view of Weast fails to explicitly disclose that the allergen sensitivity detection module further includes instructions configured to cause the processor to update an occupant history file with the identified correlation and compare the identified correlation with historical correlations.
Barcia, however, teaches that the allergen sensitivity detection module further includes instructions configured to cause the processor to update an occupant history file with the identified correlation and compare the identified correlation with historical correlations (See at least Barcia Paragraph 152 “In some embodiments, occupant wellness data may also include a medical history of the passenger, and/or a set of emergency-triggering thresholds of the passenger. Medical history may include information on one or more pre-existing medical condition(s) of the passenger, such as hypertension, asthma, or diabetes for example. Medical history of the driver may be transmitted from a remote location, such as a cloud server of a medical service provider and received as other data through a communication device thereof. Alternatively, medical history of the passenger may be readily stored in memory of the emergency detection system. The processor may analyze the medical history of the passenger while determining emergency severity. For example, the processor may analyze medical history and find that the passenger is a diabetic, and thus may monitor a blood glucose reading of biophysical data received from a blood glucose sensor among sensors. In some embodiments, passenger wellness data of the passenger may include a set of emergency-triggering thresholds associated with the specific passenger, which may be provided by a medical doctor or medical service provider. For example, in the case of the diabetic passenger, the set of emergency-triggering thresholds may include a “life-threatening” low-bound blood glucose threshold of 80 mg/dl (milligram per deciliter), and a “non-life-threatening” low-bound blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dl, as dictated by a medical service provider. In this example, the processor may determine that there is no potential emergency incident should the blood glucose sensor report a reading higher than 100 mg/dl. Moreover, the processor may determine that there is a potential emergency incident of “life-threatening” severity should the blood glucose sensor report a reading lower than 80 mg/dl. Furthermore, the processor may determine that there is a potential emergency incident of “less-than-life-threatening” severity should the blood glucose sensor report a reading between 80 mg/dl and 100 mg/dl.” | Paragraph 230 “Any of the aforementioned types of data (e.g., user profile data 904, contextual information 906, sensor data 908, or any other data) may correlate with the passenger's general health condition and disposition, and such correlation may be automatically learned by the machine learning model 902. In an embodiment, during training, the machine learning model 902 may process the training data sample (e.g., user profile 904 and/or contextual information 906) and, based on the current parameters of the machine learning model 902, detect or predict a health emergency 910 … Based on the comparison at 914 or the corresponding output of the loss function, a training algorithm may update the parameters of the machine learning model 902, with the objective of minimizing the differences or loss between subsequent detections or predictions of the health emergency 910 and the corresponding labels 912.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner in view of Weast to include that the allergen sensitivity detection module further includes instructions configured to cause the processor to update an occupant history file with the identified correlation and compare the identified correlation with historical correlations, as taught by Barcia as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate detection of allergens (Barcia “There needs to be a system that can monitor and provide suggestions when a health issue is detected.”).
With respect to claim 8, and similarly claim 19, Langner in view of Weast in view of Barcia teach that the generated response includes an output identifying a difference between the identified correlation and the historical correlations (See at least Barcia Paragraph 152 “In some embodiments, occupant wellness data may also include a medical history of the passenger, and/or a set of emergency-triggering thresholds of the passenger. Medical history may include information on one or more pre-existing medical condition(s) of the passenger, such as hypertension, asthma, or diabetes for example. Medical history of the driver may be transmitted from a remote location, such as a cloud server of a medical service provider and received as other data through a communication device thereof. Alternatively, medical history of the passenger may be readily stored in memory of the emergency detection system. The processor may analyze the medical history of the passenger while determining emergency severity. For example, the processor may analyze medical history and find that the passenger is a diabetic, and thus may monitor a blood glucose reading of biophysical data received from a blood glucose sensor among sensors. In some embodiments, passenger wellness data of the passenger may include a set of emergency-triggering thresholds associated with the specific passenger, which may be provided by a medical doctor or medical service provider. For example, in the case of the diabetic passenger, the set of emergency-triggering thresholds may include a “life-threatening” low-bound blood glucose threshold of 80 mg/dl (milligram per deciliter), and a “non-life-threatening” low-bound blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dl, as dictated by a medical service provider. In this example, the processor may determine that there is no potential emergency incident should the blood glucose sensor report a reading higher than 100 mg/dl. Moreover, the processor may determine that there is a potential emergency incident of “life-threatening” severity should the blood glucose sensor report a reading lower than 80 mg/dl. Furthermore, the processor may determine that there is a potential emergency incident of “less-than-life-threatening” severity should the blood glucose sensor report a reading between 80 mg/dl and 100 mg/dl.” | Paragraph 230 “Any of the aforementioned types of data (e.g., user profile data 904, contextual information 906, sensor data 908, or any other data) may correlate with the passenger's general health condition and disposition, and such correlation may be automatically learned by the machine learning model 902. In an embodiment, during training, the machine learning model 902 may process the training data sample (e.g., user profile 904 and/or contextual information 906) and, based on the current parameters of the machine learning model 902, detect or predict a health emergency 910 … Based on the comparison at 914 or the corresponding output of the loss function, a training algorithm may update the parameters of the machine learning model 902, with the objective of minimizing the differences or loss between subsequent detections or predictions of the health emergency 910 and the corresponding labels 912.”).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner (DE 102014223774 A1) (“Langner”) (Translation Attached) in view of Weast (US 20150032266 A1) (“Weast”) further in view of Barcia (US 20250118184 A1) (“Barcia”) further in view of McBrady (US 20220293261 A1) (“McBrady”).
With respect to claim 5, and similarly claim 16, Langner in view of Weast in view of Barcia fails to explicitly disclose that identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen includes receiving at least one occupant entered physiological response and recalculating the physiological response including the occupant entered physiological response.
McBrady, however, teaches that identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen includes receiving at least one occupant entered physiological response and recalculating the physiological response including the occupant entered physiological response (See at least McBrady Paragraph 72 “The respiration-vocalization state information may include voice quality information associated with a sample of the user's speech input to a microphone. The local monitoring device of the user may include a telecommunication device configured to analyze the samples of the user's speech input from the microphone to generate the voice quality information. The respiration-vocalization state information may include respiratory quality information associated with a sample of the user's aspiration input to a sensor. The sensor may be configured to be in fluid communication with the user's respiratory system while the user is wearing a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mask operably coupled to the local monitoring device of the user. The sensor may be an air pressure sensor. The sensor may be an air flow sensor.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner in view of Weast in view of Barcia to include that identifying the correlation between the physiological response of the occupant and the detected allergen includes receiving at least one occupant entered physiological response and recalculating the physiological response including the occupant entered physiological response, as taught by McBrady as disclosed above, in order to ensure a sufficient response is generated (McBrady Paragraph 6 “ Various results may advantageously indicate specific allergen conditions in an area based on monitoring of a population of users of CPAP machines or other devices in widespread use.”).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langner (DE 102014223774 A1) (“Langner”) (Translation Attached) in view of Weast (US 20150032266 A1) (“Weast”) further in view of Brown (US 20210009055 A1) (“Brown”).
With respect to claim 6, and similarly claim 17, Langner in view of Weast fails to explicitly disclose that the air quality sensor suite includes a first set of sensors configured to monitoring allergen quantities in air ingested to the vehicle from an exterior environment and a second set of sensors configured to monitor air recirculated from a passenger compartment of the vehicle.
Brown, however, teaches that the air quality sensor suite includes a first set of sensors configured to monitoring allergen quantities in air ingested to the vehicle from an exterior environment and a second set of sensors configured to monitor air recirculated from a passenger compartment of the vehicle (See at least Brown Paragraph 18 “Turning to FIG. 1, a vehicle 100 may include a system 101 for providing allergy information to a user of the vehicle 100. The vehicle 100 (or system 101) may include an ECU 102, a memory 104, a power source 106, and a main body 108. The vehicle 100 (or system 101) may further include a network access device 110, and a sensor 132. The vehicle may also include a multimedia unit 143 including an input device 138 and an output device 140. The vehicle 100 may also include an air filter 154 that receives air via an air intake channel 156, and an allergen sensor 158 located in or on at least one of the air filter 154 or the air intake channel 156. The vehicle 100 may further include an exhaust channel 160 and an exhaust sensor 162 located in or on the exhaust channel 160. The allergen sensor 158 and the exhaust sensor 162 may be located at any other location on the vehicle 100 without departing from the scope of the present disclosure.” | Paragraphs 31-32 “The allergen sensor 158 may be located in, on, or in relatively close proximity (e.g., within 1 foot, within 2 feet, within 5 feet, or the like) to the air filter 154 or the air intake channel 156. In some embodiments, the allergen sensor 158 may be located on another portion of the vehicle 100 in a location in which it may be exposed to air in the environment of the vehicle 100. The allergen sensor 158 may detect allergen data corresponding to presence of allergens in an environment of the vehicle 100. The allergen sensor 158 may include one or more allergen sensor capable of detecting allergens such as pollen, other organic particles, exhaust or other man-made allergens, animal excrement or dander, or any other particle to which individuals may be allergic. The allergen sensor 158 may be capable of detecting levels, such as relative levels, of allergens in the environment. In some embodiments, the allergen sensor 158 may detect levels of multiple different types of allergens and may distinguish between the different types. For example, the allergen sensor 158 may detect that maple tree pollen is at a level 7 out of 10 and that grass pollen is at a level 2 out of 10. In some embodiments, the allergen sensor 158 may detect the levels of allergens in various ways such as an absolute particle count of the allergens per unit volume (e.g., 50 particles per cubic foot), a mass flow of the allergens, a percentage of air that contains the allergens, or the like.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Langner in view of Weast to include that the air quality sensor suite includes a first set of sensors configured to monitoring allergen quantities in air ingested to the vehicle from an exterior environment and a second set of sensors configured to monitor air recirculated from a passenger compartment of the vehicle, as taught by Brown as disclosed above, in order to ensure accurate allergen detection (Brown 16 “The systems also advantageously associate allergen levels with specific locations and warn individuals if they are entering an area with relatively high levels of allergens to which they are allergic. ”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (571)272-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/IBRAHIM ABDOALATIF ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights