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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
1) Claim 2 line 2, the term “he” between “wherein” and “processing” should read – the --. Appropriate correction is required.
ART REJECTION:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimotani et al(USPGPUB 2022/0139093 A1) in view of Almasi et al(USPGPUB 2024/0416923 A1).
-- In considering claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Shimontani et al(Shimontani) includes:
1) processing circuitry is met by the environment analysis apparatus(100), including processing circuit(95)(see: Shimontani, sec[0034-0035])
2) the processing circuitry configured to
i) estimate a state of the driver based on the line of sight of the driver is met by the line of sight detection apparatus(110), which determines a line of sign of a driver(see: sec[0054]);
ii) set a predetermined visual range that includes a line-of-sight direction in a case where the driver directs their line of sight in an advancing direction of the vehicle is met by the individual gaze area recognition unit(140) which recognizes the individual gaze area that is outside of an area of the vehicle(see: Shimontani, sec[0055]);
iii) acquire a distribution of gazing points of the driver within a predetermined time based on the line of sight of the driver is met by the individual gaze area recognition unit acquiring line of sight data of individual occupants detected in the line of sight apparatus, and storing the data in a predetermined cycle and in a predetermined analysis period, so as to calculate a line of sight distribution data as time series data(see: Shimontani, sec[0055]);
iv) estimate that the driver is in an abnormal state in a case where a ratio of the gazing points included in the predetermined visual range among all the gazing points included in the acquired distribution of the gazing points is equal to or greater than a predetermined ratio is met by the line of sight distribution being calculated by the unit(140), and wherein the unit(140) recognizes the point as an individual gaze area with deep learning logic, such that a ration of the gaze is calculated(see: sec[0094]).
- Shimontani does not teach:
1) a camera that detects a line of sight of the driver.
In related art, Almasi et al(Almasi) teaches a driver distraction system, wherein a camera is utilized to determine a drivers gaze(see: Almasi, sec[0036]). Since the Shimontani teaches the use of a driver gaze detection apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the camera of Almasi, into the system of Shimontani, since this would have provided a well known and efficient means of detecting a driver’s gaze.
-- With regards to claim 2,
1) the processing circuitry is further configured to
i) acquire travel environment information of the vehicle is met by the travel environment analysis apparatus which acquires travel environment information of the vehicle(see: Shimontani, sec[0034]);
ii) set a size of the predetermined visual range based on the travel environment information is met by the range of the gaze area being established(see: Shimontani, sec[0088]).
-- With regards to claim 3,
1) the processing circuitry is further configured to
i) acquire a number of cautionary objects in vicinity of the vehicle based on the travel environment information and increase the predetermined visual range in a case that the number of the cautionary objects is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold is met by the gaze area increasing based on the ration of vehicles in the gaze area(see: Shimontani, sec[0119]).
-- With regards to claim 4,
1) the processing circuitry is further configured to
i) set, as the predetermined visual range, a circular range centered on an average direction of a distribution of the line-of-sight directions within a predetermined time based on the line of sight of the driver is met by the line of sight distribution being calculated by the unit(140), and wherein the unit(140) recognizes the point as an individual gaze area with deep learning logic, such that a ration of the gaze is calculated(see: sec[0094]).
-- With regards to claim 5,
1) the cautionary objects include at least one of another vehicle, an obstacle, a pedestrian, a traffic light, and a road sign is met by the vehicles(201 included in the gaze areas(see: Shimontani, sec[0119]).
-- With regards to claim 6, Shimontani teaches any of a various gaze time recognition time periods, including 2 seconds, 4 seconds, 10 seconds, etc(see: Shimontani, secs[0093-0094]). Therefore, it would have constituted a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed predetermined time is approximately 30 seconds, or any other time period, since one of ordinary skill would have readily recognized the most effective time period to provide desired results in the system.
-- With regards to claim 7,
1) the processing circuitry is further configured to output an alarm in a case that the driver is estimated to be in the abnormal state is met by the display apparatus displaying a warning based on analysis apparatus information(see: Shimontani, sec[0057]).
-- With regards to claim 9, it would have been an matter or obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the predetermined ratio is 0.5, since Shimontani would have accommodated any of a number of ratios as desired that would have provided the desired effects in the system.
-- With regards to claim 10,
1) the processing circuitry is further configured to identify a gazing point when the line of sight of the driver has stagnated for approximately 0.3 seconds is met by the predetermined analysis period is 2 seconds(see: Shimotani, sec[0072]), which is approximately the same as 3 seconds.
-- Claim 11 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
-- Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 11 above.
-- Claim 13 depends from claim 12, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 12 above.
-- Claim 14 depends from claim 11, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 11 above.
-- Claim 15 depends from claim 11, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 5 and 11 above.
-- Claim 16 depends from claim 11, and recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 11. Therefore, claim 16 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims
-- Claim 17 recites essentially the same subject matter as that of claim 1, and therefore, is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, as well as:
1) A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by processing circuitry is met by the memory of the processors used in the system(see: Shimotani, sec[0038]).
-- Claim 18 depends from claim 17, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 17 above.
-- Claim 19 depends from claim 15, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 3 and 15 above.
-- Claim 20 depends from claim 14, and recites subject matter that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 4 and 14 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights