DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claims of the following: U.S. Patent No. 11,853,645. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,645, and independent claims of the present application share the following:
Pending Application 18/976,016
U.S. Patent No. 11,853,645
A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing one or more media files;
determining a user state score based on a biometric measurement of a user via a vehicle sensor;
selecting a target user state score;
and selecting a particular media file of the one or more media files based on at least one of: (i) the user state score, (ii) the target user state score, and (iii) a status of the one or more media files as meeting or not meeting a threshold play count
A system comprising:
a sensor in a vehicle to detect a measurement of a user;
and a media selector machine to:
determine a current user state score based on the detected measurement of the user;
select a target user state score for the user based on the current user state score, access a mapping of user state scores to a number of media play counts of a plurality of audio media files;
and select, an audio media file from the plurality of audio media files to present to the user based on the number of media play counts of the audio media file and the target user state score
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullock (Patent No.: US 9,613,466 B1; hereinafter Bullock) in view of Hampiholi et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0053066 A1; hereinafter Hampiholi)
Consider claims 1, 16, and 20, Bullock clearly shows and discloses a computer-implemented method, a computing device, and a tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a set of operations comprising: accessing one or more media files; determining a user state score based on a biometric measurement of a user via a vehicle sensor (actions of a driver, actual speed and accelerations as the vehicle traverses a particular road, If actual speed is higher than RSS past a certain point/ actual speed read on a current user state score) (col. 2, lines 7-14, col. 8, lines 60-67, col. 9, lines 1-3); (col. 9, lines 4-13); selecting a target user state score (a safe speed to the driver and a point at which the vehicle must begin braking for the next road read on a target user state score) (col. 2, lines 42-60, col. 14, lines 3-8); and selecting a particular media file of the one or more media files based on at least one of: (If actual speed is higher than RSS past a certain point where the distance required to decelerate is reached, a warning is issued to the driver, audible warnings (e.g. “Slow down to miles per hour.”) for example; mapping the user state scores to select an audible warning among audible warning files that appropriate to user current state) (col. 14, lines 3-9, col. 8, lines 39-60); selecting a particular media file of the one or more media files based on at least one of: (i) the user state score, (ii) the target user state score, and (iii) a status of the one or more media files as meeting or not meeting a threshold play count (mapping the user state scores to select an audible warning among audible warning files that appropriate to user current state such as (e.g. “Slow down to miles per hour.”) this audio media file based on a target user state score/ the vehicle must begin braking for the next road and based on the number of media paly counts of the audio media file/ read on If the driver fails to heed the alert, additional warnings will be issued with increasing frequency and/or volume until corrective action is taken ) (col. 14, lines 8-16; col. 8, lines 43-50, col. 9, lines 4-13, and fig. 1); however, Bullock does not specifically teach another example for determining a user state score based on a biometric measurement of a user via a vehicle sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Hampiholi clearly discloses another example for determining a user state score based on a biometric measurement of a user via a vehicle sensor (abstract, paragraphs: 0015, 0020, 0026, 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Hampiholi into teaching of Bullock for the purpose of detecting the driving condition by using a biometric sensor.
Consider claim 2, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly shows the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein accessing one or more media files comprises accessing play counts of one or more media files (Bullock: col. 14, lines 3-9, col. 8, lines 39-60; Hampiholi: paragraph 0056)
Consider claim 3, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the target user state score is based on a driving condition (Bullock: col. 2, lines 42-60, col. 14, lines 3-8).
Consider claim 4, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor comprises a facial sensor to detect a facial characteristic of the user (Hampiholi: abstract paragraphs: 0032).
Consider claim 5, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the facial characteristic includes a duration of a blink of an eye of the user (Hampiholi: abstract paragraphs: 0020 and 0058).
Consider claim 6, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the facial characteristic includes a frequency of movement of an eye of the user (Hampiholi: abstract paragraphs: 0020 and 0058).
Consider claim 7, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly shows the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor comprises a biometric sensor (Hampiholi: paragraphs: 0020 and 0058).
Consider claim 8, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor comprises a heart rate sensor to detect a heart rate of the user (Hampiholi: paragraph 0005 and 0020).
Consider claim 9, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the target user state score is based on a driving condition (Bullock: col. 7, lines 25-32, col. 11, lines 65-67).
Consider claim 10, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor detects a fluctuation in a force applied on a steering wheel to detect the driving condition (Hampiholi: paragraphs: 0019, 0020, and 0038).
Consider claim 11, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor detects use of windshield wipers to detect the driving condition (such as user’s body temperature) (Hampiholi: paragraph 0037).
Consider claim 12, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor detects brake pedal depression frequency to detect the driving condition (such as user’s body temperature) (Hampiholi: paragraph 0032).
Consider claim 13, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor detects vehicle direction change frequency to detect the driving condition (Hampiholi: paragraph 0025 and 0042).
Consider claim 14, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein the vehicle sensor detects use of vehicle climate control to detect the driving condition (Hampiholi: paragraph 0019).
Consider claim 15, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the tangible, non-transitory machine readable storage medium, wherein accessing one or more media files comprises accessing play counts of one or more media files, and wherein the set of operations further comprises comparing the accessed play counts to the threshold play count (Hampiholi: paragraph 0015, 0026, 0043 and fig. 4).
Consider claim 17, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the method, wherein the vehicle sensor comprises a facial sensor to detect a facial characteristic of the user (Hampiholi: paragraph 0032).
Consider claim 18, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the method, wherein the facial characteristic includes a frequency of movement of an eye of the user (Hampiholi: paragraph 0020 and 0058).
Consider claim 19, Bullock and Hampiholi clearly show the method, wherein the vehicle sensor comprises one or more of: (i) a biometric sensor; and (ii) a heart rate sensor to detect a heart rate of the user (Hampiholi: paragraph 0020 and 0058).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights