Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant mentions “vital signs” however there is no support found in the specification for those specific types of measurements being recorded.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant mentions “conditional branching” however there is no support found in the specification.
The examiner further suggests that the parenthesis should be removed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biondo (US 20180339706 A1) in view of Newberry(US 10194871 B2).
Regarding claim 1 Biondo disclose an integrated vehicle sensor safety and autonomous communications system computer application(180) permitting an individual to operate the vehicle comprising(para 0046), operational sensors(para 0051) configured to determine alcohol content, disabling or restricting propulsion of the vehicle(para 0053) and initiating a multi-stage, adaptive communication notification protocol including but not limited to auto emergency contact numbers, 911 call and vehicle alert status (VAS) if equipped(para 0090).
Biondo does not disclose the sensors configured to detect medical condition impairment and environmental inducements, however Newberry discloses a similar health monitoring system(fig 1) which discloses operational sensors(100) configured to determine medical condition impairment and environmental inducements of an individual(col 7 lines 32-41), further including system activation upon sensor determination of the individual’s confirmed impairment(col 28 lines 49-54). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biondo such that the system comprises additional sensors to detect a variety of information regarding the driver’s current health state.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Biondo and Newberry discloses wherein said vehicle sensors comprising, breathalyzer (alcohol)(para 0033, Biondo), and continuous monitoring(col 14, lines 7-17; Newberry) of the individual's vital signs (including temperature, heart rate, and oxygen saturation(col 2, lines 60-67; Newberry)) associated with operational impairment by chemical or environmental inducement(para 0033; Biondo).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Biondo and Newberry discloses wherein said communication notification protocol comprises, occupant’s failure to respond to emergency control number activation response (196, para 0090,0091; Biondo), a multi-stage, sequentially adaptive determination protocol enabling a series of action determinations pre-programmed in the system application(col 27, lines 17-34; Newberry discloses the biosensor is able generate feedback indicators to alert multiple systems if required to execute changes in the system).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Biondo and Newberry discloses wherein the action determined comprises conditional autonomous operation of the vehicle(2518; Newberry), including heating, AC control(2516), and window operation(col 35 lines 45-55), wherein such comfort functions are functionally linked to impairment determination; and autonomous vehicle activation to direct said vehicle to a safe place dependent on pre-determined access protocols if so equipped(col 35 line 56- col 36 line 3).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Biondo and Newberry discloses wherein said communication notification protocols further comprise, occupant answers to auto initiated emergency call response(para 0016-0018; Biondo), initiation of a real-time determination mode to access status of the individual's condition and initiate conditional branching between escalation, comfort features, or relocation response required dependent thereon. (col 13 lines 60- col 14 lines 6 Newberry discloses the sensors can be configured to a real time determination mode, col 27, lines 17-34; Newberry discloses systems such as the climate system can be configured to raise or lower the temperature for the user’s comfort)
Regarding claim 6 Biondo discloses a method of vehicle operator impairment determination in vehicle safety control operation systems by a computer application comprising the steps of; a. providing integrated operational condition sensors linked to vehicle’s starting and safety systems(Para 0051), b. activating of communication control protocol including emergency numbers and auto pre-recorded messages(para 0090), c. determination of actions based on response of operator thereto(para 0090), d. activation of vehicle operational equipment, alarms and remote control via VAS equipped vehicles(para 0080).
Biondo discloses autonomous operation of a vehicle (para 0037) however they do not disclose conditional selection between contacting ride-share services and autonomous relocation. However, Newberry determination of actions including conditional selection between contacting ride-share services and autonomous relocation, in response to the sequence of the operator's status. (col 35 line 56 – col 36 line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biondo such that it comprises additional features contacting a ride share service to provide convenient options of additional safety features to the rider discouraging them from driving inebriated.
Biondo further discloses while the system can be used in autonomous cars, he does not claim conditional selection. However, Newberry discloses a similar vehicle system comprising physiological monitoring systems (col 2, lines 60-67; Newberry). Upon determination of the rider’s condition, if the condition is severe and the rider is unconscious or unresponsive the vehicle is placed in a similar non-operational mode (col 35 line 56 – col 36 line 3) the autonomous vehicle is to direct said vehicle to a safe place dependent on pre-determined access protocols if so equipped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biondo such that it comprises additional features such as automated driving to a safe destination to provide the passenger with assistance as soon as possible depending on the severity of his condition(the examiner considers this as conditional selection as if the rider is deemed responsive alternate measures are executed depending on the situation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAMS DHANANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) - 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Paul Dickson can be reached on (571) 272-7742. 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.
SHAMS. DHANANI
Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614