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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 02/02/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 7 line 1 “he” should read --the--.
At claim 15 line 1 “A computer-readable medium” should read --A non-transient computer-readable medium--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-15 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the controlling the vehicle step in the independent claims integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HAMPHIHOLI (US 2016/0267335).
Regarding claim 1, HAMPHIHOLI discloses a method performed by a vehicle control apparatus, the method comprising:
determining a braking stage (if distraction severity R is within 3rd range, automatically control braking, S420, Fig. 4, 0057 lines 38-39) based on information on a heart rate range of a driver (0063 lines 6-10 and 13-16) and information on a carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8)(i.a. Figs. 4-6);
transmitting a control command for braking to a vehicle based on the braking stage (implied, 0057 lines 38-39); and
controlling the vehicle based on the control command for braking (implied, 0057 lines 38-39),
wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver (0063 lines 6-10), and
wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver (0062 lines 1-4 and 9-12).
A review of Applicant’s disclosure has not returned a special definition given for the claim term “stage.” Therefore, the common definition has been used. OED defines “stage” in this sense as a period or point in the development or progression of something; a step in a process (VI.19.). HAMPHIHOLI discloses a braking stage because the braking stage (S422, Fig. 4) follows a visual warning stage (S414, Fig. 4) and an audio warning stage (S418, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, HAMPHIHOLI discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a memory (0021 line 4); and
a plurality of processors (0021 line 4),
wherein at least one processor of the plurality of processors is configured to (implied, 0021 line 4)
determine a braking stage (if distraction severity R is within 3rd range, automatically control braking, S420, Fig. 4, 0057 lines 38-39) of a vehicle based on information on a heart rate range of a driver (0063 lines 6 10 and 13-16) and information on carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8)(i.a. Figs. 4-6);
transmit a control command for braking to the vehicle based on the braking stage (implied, 0057 lines 38-39); and
control the vehicle based on the control command for braking (implied, 0057 lines 38-39),
wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver (0063 lines 6-10), and
wherein the information on the carelessness of the driver is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver (0062 lines 1-4 and 9-12).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
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 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, 5, 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EIGEL (DE 10 2018 211 339) in view of HAMPHIHOLI (US 2016/0267335).
Regarding claim 1, EIGEL discloses a method performed by a vehicle control apparatus, the method comprising:
determining a braking stage based on information on continued inactivity of a driver (0041 lines 1-6, determining stage from continued inactivity because it is at least implied that stages progress only if inactivity continues, i.a. 0041 lines 30-31);
transmitting a control command for braking to a vehicle based on the braking stage (implied, 0012 lines 4-5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31); and
controlling the vehicle based on the control command for braking (implied, 0012 lines 4-5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31),
so that the driver can be woken up to take control of the vehicle (0014 line 7).
EIGEL discloses determining the braking stage based on driver inactivity on the steering wheel (0041 lines 5-6) rather than on a heart rate range of the driver and a carelessness of the driver as claimed.
HAMPHIHOLI teaches determining a driver is distracted based on information on a heart rate range of a driver (0063 lines 6-10 and 13-16) and information on a carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8)(i.a. Figs. 4-6);
wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver (0063 lines 6-10), and
wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver (0062 lines 1-4 and 9-12),
to determine whether a driver is distracted (0018 lines 10-11) to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses (0017 lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determining a driver is distracted taught by HAMPHIHOLA for the determining a driver is inactive of EIGEL to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses.
EIGEL as modified teaches determining a braking stage based on information on a heart rate range of a driver and information on a carelessness of the driver; wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver, and wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver.
A review of Applicant’s disclosure has not returned a special definition given for the claim term “stage.” Therefore, the common definition has been used. OED defines “stage” in this sense as a period or point in the development or progression of something; a step in a process (VI.19.)
Regarding claim 2, EIGEL as modified teaches the method of claim 1.
EIGEL further teaches the braking stage is classified into first-stage braking (0041 lines 25-31), second-stage braking (0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9), and third-stage braking (0012 lines 4-5, 0039 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 5, EIGEL as modified teaches the method of claim 2.
EIGEL further discloses wherein transmitting a control command for braking to the vehicle comprises generating a warning sound when the braking stage is determined to be the third-stage braking (0011 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 8, EIGEL discloses a vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a memory (implied by computer, and processor, 0016 line 5, 0027 lines 7-8); and
a plurality of processors (0027 lines 7-8),
wherein at least one processor of the plurality of processors is configured to (0016 lines 1-6)
determine a braking stage of a vehicle based on information on continued inactivity of a driver (0041 lines 1 6, determining stage from continued inactivity because it is at least implied that stages progress only if inactivity continues, i.a. 0041 lines 30-31);
transmit a control command for braking to the vehicle based on the braking stage (implied, 0012 lines 4 5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31); and
control the vehicle based on the control command for braking (implied, 0012 lines 4 5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31),
so that the driver can be woken up to take control of the vehicle (0014 line 7).
EIGEL discloses determining the braking stage based on driver inactivity on the steering wheel (0041 lines 5-6) rather than on a heart rate range of the driver and a carelessness of the driver as claimed.
HAMPHIHOLI teaches determining a driver is distracted based on information on a heart rate range of a driver (0063 lines 6 10 and 13-16) and information on a carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8)(i.a. Figs. 4-6);
wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver (0063 lines 6-10), and
wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver (0062 lines 1-4 and 9-12),
to determine whether a driver is distracted (0018 lines 10-11) to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses (0017 lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determining a driver is distracted taught by HAMPHIHOLA for the determining a driver is inactive of EIGEL to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses.
EIGEL as modified teaches the at least one processor of the plurality of processors is configured to determine a braking stage of a vehicle based on information on a heart rate range of a driver and information on carelessness of the driver, wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver, and wherein the information on the carelessness of the driver is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 9, EIGEL as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 8.
EIGEL further discloses wherein the braking stage is classified into (0041 lines 25-31), second-stage braking (0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9), and third-stage braking (0012 lines 4-5, 0039 lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 12, EIGEL as modified teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 9.
EIGEL further discloses wherein the at least one processor of the plurality of processors is configured to generate a warning sound when the braking stage is determined to be the third-stage braking (0011 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 15, EIGEL discloses a computer-readable medium storing a computer program including computer-executable instructions for causing, when executed by a computer (implied, i.a. 0016 lines 5-6), the computer to perform steps of:
determining a braking stage of a vehicle based on information on continued inactivity of a driver (0041 lines 1 6, determining stage from continued inactivity because it is at least implied that stages progress only if inactivity continues, i.a. 0041 lines 30-31);
transmitting a control command for braking to the vehicle based on the braking stage (implied, 0012 lines 4 5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31); and
controlling the vehicle based on the control command for braking (implied, 0012 lines 4 5, 0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9, 0039 lines 7-8, 0041 lines 25-31),
wherein the braking stage is classified into first-stage braking (0041 lines 25-31), second-stage braking (0014 lines 2-3, 0037 lines 5-9), and third-stage braking (0012 lines 4-5, 0039 lines 7-8),
so that the driver can be woken up to take control of the vehicle (0014 line 7).
EIGEL discloses determining the braking stage based on driver inactivity on the steering wheel (0041 lines 5-6) rather than on a heart rate range of the driver and a carelessness of the driver as claimed.
HAMPHIHOLI teaches determining a driver is distracted based on information on a heart rate range of a driver (0063 lines 6 10 and 13-16) and information on a carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8)(i.a. Figs. 4-6);
wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver (0063 lines 6-10), and
wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver (0062 lines 1-4 and 9-12),
to determine whether a driver is distracted (0018 lines 10-11) to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses (0017 lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determining a driver is distracted taught by HAMPHIHOLA for the determining a driver is inactive of EIGEL to address the issue of distracted driving and the major traffic safety issue that such driving poses.
EIGEL as modified teaches determining a braking stage based on information on a heart rate range of a driver and information on a carelessness of the driver; wherein the information on the heart rate range is obtained by recognizing a heart rate of the driver, and wherein the information on the carelessness is obtained by recognizing a face of the driver.
A review of Applicant’s disclosure has not returned a special definition given for the claim term “stage.” Therefore, the common definition has been used. OED defines “stage” in this sense as a period or point in the development or progression of something; a step in a process (VI.19.)
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMPHIHOLI (US 2016/0267335) in view of YAN (CN 107374603).
Regarding claim 6, HAMPHIHOLI discloses the method of claim 1.
HAMPHIHOLI discloses the information on the heart rate range of the driver (0063 lines 6-10).
HAMPHIHOLI is not relied upon to teach the normal-, tachycardia-, and bradycardia ranges as claimed.
YAN teaches information on a heart rate range of the driver (pg. 3 lines 22-23) includes information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a normal range (implied), information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a tachycardia range (higher than first threshold, p. 4 lines 27-28), and information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a bradycardia range (less than second threshold, pg. 4 lines 28-29) to determine whether the driver is in a fatigue state (p. 4 line 28) or a sleeping state (p. 4 line 29) to judge whether the current driver posture is in accordance with a safe driving judging result (pg. 2 lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of HAMPHIHOLI to determine whether the heart rate range of the driver is in a normal-, tachycardia-, or bradycardia range as taught by YAN to judge whether the current driver state is in accordance with safe driving.
HAMPHIHOLI as modified teaches wherein the information on the heart rate range of the driver includes information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a normal range, information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a tachycardia range, and information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a bradycardia range.
Regarding claim 13, HAMPHIHOLI discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 8.
HAMPHIHOLI discloses the information on the heart rate range of the driver (0063 lines 6-10).
HAMPHIHOLI is not relied upon to teach the normal-, tachycardia-, and bradycardia ranges as claimed.
YAN teaches information on a heart rate range of the driver (pg. 3 lines 22-23) includes information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a normal range (implied), information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a tachycardia range (higher than first threshold, p. 4 lines 27-28), and information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a bradycardia range (less than second threshold, pg. 4 lines 28-29) to determine whether the driver is in a fatigue state (p. 4 line 28) or a sleeping state (p. 4 line 29) to judge whether the current driver posture is in accordance with a safe driving judging result (pg. 2 lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle control apparatus of HAMPHIHOLI to determine whether the heart rate range of the driver is in a normal-, tachycardia-, or bradycardia range as taught by YAN to judge whether the current driver state is in accordance with safe driving.
HAMPHIHOLI as modified teaches wherein the information on the heart rate range of the driver includes information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a normal range, information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a tachycardia range, and information on whether the heart rate range of the driver is a bradycardia range.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMPHIHOLI (US 2016/0267335).
Regarding claim 7, HAMPHIHOLI discloses the method of claim 1.
HAMPHIHOLI, wherein the information on the carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8) includes information classified as carelessness level 0 (first range, S412, Fig. 4), information classified as carelessness level 1 (second range, S416, Fig. 4), information classified as carelessness level 2 (third range, S420, Fig. 4).
HAMPHIHOLI further discloses any number of carelessness ranges may be used (0057 lines 59-62).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a fourth carelessness range to the vehicle control apparatus of HAMPHIHOLI to add increased gradation to the efforts in alerting the driver. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in the selection of four carelessness levels in the practice of Applicant’s invention (n.b. “may” pg. 13 line 1).
Regarding claim 14, HAMPHIHOLI discloses the vehicle control apparatus of claim 8.
HAMPHIHOLI further discloses wherein the information on the carelessness of the driver (0062 lines 9-12; c.f. forms of “carelessness” discussed by Applicant at p. 7 lines 4-8) includes information classified as carelessness level 0 (first range, S412, Fig. 4), information classified as carelessness level 1 (second range, S416, Fig. 4), information classified as carelessness level 2 (third range, S420, Fig. 4).
HAMPHIHOLI does not explicitly disclose a carelessness level 3 as claimed.
HAMPHIHOLI further discloses any number of carelessness ranges may be used (0057 lines 59-62).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a fourth carelessness range to the vehicle control apparatus of HAMPHIHOLI to add increased gradation to the efforts in alerting the driver. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality in the selection of four carelessness levels in the practice of Applicant’s invention (n.b. “may” pg. 13 line 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHOU (CN 118717127) and GAO (CN 118387113) each disclose subject matter related to claim 2 but are intervening references.
GUARNIZO (US 9,047,780) discloses subject matter related to claims 1 and 2 (i.a. Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights