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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (organizing human activity and mental processes) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) “detect a line-of-sight direction of the driver”, “detect a position of a mobile terminal in an interior of the vehicle based on an image”, “determine whether the driver is in an inattentive state based on whether or not the line-of-sight direction of the driver is within an inattentiveness determination region”, and “set a region in which the mobile terminal is located as the inattentiveness determination region”. The acquire of the first information and the second information could be performed by mental processes, and notify occupant is merely organizing human activity. However, these limitations constitute mental processes, which are recognized judicial exceptions. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP 2106.04.
The claim further recites additional elements, such as “a processor” and “an image acquired from an indoor camera for capturing an image of the interior of the vehicle” to perform the abstract tasks; however, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality and serves as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea;
the “indoor camera” is a well-known device for collecting image data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the claim further recite limitation to define how to set a region, which is also considered as abstract idea directed to human activity and mental processes; thus, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, the claims further recite “a driver monitor camera”, “an indoor camera” besides the generic computer (i.e. the processor). However, the cameras are considered as well-known device for collecting image data. Therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”; thus, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, the claim(s) recite(s) limitations similar to claim 1; thus, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the same reason set forth in rejection of claim 1.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porta (US 2021/0012126 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Porta discloses a method and an inattentiveness determination device which determines whether or not a driver of a vehicle is inattentive (e.g. Abstract & [0002]), comprising
a processor (e.g. Fig. 1: 106a-106n & [0025]), the processor is configured to:
detect a line-of-sight direction of the driver (e.g. Fig. 8: 508 & [0153-0156]);
detect a position of a mobile terminal in an interior of the vehicle based on an image acquired from an indoor camera for capturing an image of the interior of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 8: 412’ & [0154]);
determine whether the driver is in an inattentive state based on whether or not the line-of-sight direction of the driver is within an inattentiveness determination region (e.g. Fig. 8: 412’ & [0153-0159]: determine whether direction of gaze of the driver corresponds to the location of the smartphone); and
set a region in which the mobile terminal is located as the inattentiveness determination region, when there is the mobile terminal in the interior of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 8: 412’ & [0154]).
Regarding claim 2, Porta discloses the processor is configured to set, as the inattentiveness determination region, a region set in advance regardless of the position of the mobile terminal, in addition to the region in which the mobile terminal is located (e.g. Fig. 8: [0159]: driver is distracted when interacting with infotainment system located as 520; [0163]: field of view of driver below a level of the dashboard 512).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Porta discloses an inattentiveness determination system comprising:
a driver monitor camera which captures an image of a face of the driver (e.g. Fig. 2: 102a-102n & [0070]); and an indoor camera which captures an image of the interior of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2: 102b & [0026-0028]), wherein the processor is configured to detect the line-of-sight direction of the driver based on an image captured by the driver monitor camera, and the indoor camera is arranged to capture an image of a region located in front of the driver (e.g. Fig. 8 & [0153-0156]).
Regarding claim 4, Porta discloses the indoor camera (e.g. Fig. 2: 102b & [0026-0028]), but fails to disclose the indoor camera is arranged so as to capture an image from a ceiling of the vehicle forwardly downwardly in the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688