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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “detection part”, “determination part”, “extraction part”, “provision part”, “gaze detecting part” in claims 1, 3-6, and 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “detection part”, “determination part”, “extraction part”, “provision part”, “gaze detecting part” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to a products that does not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher et al. (US 2021/0174103 A1) in view of Kuwabara et al. (US 2024/0227843 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 13, and 14, Schumacher discloses an information provision device, an information provision method that is performed by a computer, and a program causing a computer to perform comprising:
a detection part configured to detect behavior of a vehicle (See Fig 2 exterior camera, object detection sensor, cabin camera. See [0050-0052] object detection in the vicinity of vehicle. Thresholds for determining what constitutes anomalous driving based on exterior detected conditions);
a determination part configured to determine whether driving of the vehicle performed by a driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to a predetermined criterion (See Fig 5, a gaze is outside alert area for a time greater than a threshold time, See [0059-0062]);
an extraction part configured to extract a first image in a first predetermined time before a first time at which the desirable action has been performed (See Fig 5 a desirable action such as no mobile device usage. See also [0049-0050] images are stored at random intervals outside of an anomalous event.) or a second image in a second predetermined time before a second time at which the undesirable action has been performed out of images captured by the imaging part (See Fig 5 and [0059-0062] gaze tracking and pose detection resulting in the image being analyzed by the CNN); and
a provision part configured to provide content corresponding to a type of the action using the extracted image (See [0074-0075] providing an alert to the driver such as an audio notification or visual notification based on the CNN identifying a pose indicating distracted driving).
Schumacher does not disclose a predetermined criterion on the basis of one or both of the behavior of the vehicle detected by the detection part and an image captured by an imaging part that images a surrounding situation of the vehicle
Kuwabara discloses that it was known to monitor vehicle surrounding and interior and provide a notification when a predetermined condition is met on the basis of the behavior of the vehicle and an image surrounding the situation of the vehicle (See [0005] situation surrounding the vehicle detected based on out of vehicle sensor, behavior sensor, current location of a vehicle. See [0051] situation requiring notification based on the out of vehicle LiDAR camera sensor when a vehicle approaches the front of the vehicle. See [0054] situation requiring notification based on in vehicle camera determining state of drowsiness or inattentiveness.)
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Schumacher with the known methods of Kuwabara predictably resulting in determining whether driving of the vehicle performed by a driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to a predetermined criterion on the basis of one or both of the behavior of the vehicle detected by the detection part and an image captured by an imaging part that images a surrounding situation of the vehicle by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of monitoring and alerting to a wider variety of situation including potential collisions on the vehicle exterior as suggested by Kuwabara.
Regarding claim 3, Schumacher and Kuwabara disclose the information provision device according to claim 1, wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion on the basis of the image captured by the imaging part and the behavior of the vehicle (See analysis of claim 1 with respect to Kuwabara), and wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion by inputting the image and the behavior of the vehicle to a trained model which has been trained to output a type of the action when the image and the behavior of the vehicle are input thereto (See Schumacher Fig 5, Fig 7, and [0061-0063] [0073-0075]).
Regarding claim 5, Schumacher and Kuwabara further disclose the information provision device according to claim 1, further comprising a gaze detecting part configured to detect a direction of a gaze of the driver, wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion on the basis of information indicating the image captured by the imaging part, the behavior of the vehicle, and the direction of the gaze, and wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion by inputting the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze to a trained model which has been trained to output a type of the action when the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze are input thereto (See Schumacher Fig 5, [0059-0060] and [0062] ).
Regarding claim 7, Schumacher and Kuwabara further disclose the information provision device according to claim 5, wherein the trained model is a model which has been trained using training data, wherein the training data includes the image, the behavior of the vehicle, the information indicating the direction of the gaze, and correct-answer data, and wherein the correct-answer data is information indicating a type of an action based on a combination of the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze (See Schumacher [0061] [0074-0075] images of distracted and not distracted driving used as training data. ).
Regarding claim 9, Schumacher and Kuwabara further disclose the information provision device according to claim 7, wherein the trained model outputs information indicating that the undesirable action has been performed when the behavior of the vehicle deviates from the criterion based on the situation in the image by a predetermined value or more, or wherein the trained model outputs information indicating that the undesirable action has been performed when the direction of the gaze deviates from a criterion direction based on the situation in the image by a predetermined value or more (See Schumacher [0037-0038] [0060] [0062] gaze outside of an alert area for an amount of time that exceeds a predefined amount of time).
Regarding claim 11, Schumacher and Kuwabara further disclose the information provision device according to claim 1, wherein the detection part is mounted in the vehicle or a device installed in the vehicle (See Schumacher [0034-0035] [0049] vehicle sensors), and wherein the determination part is provided in a device other than the vehicle (See Schumacher [0033] [0058]).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher et al. (US 2021/0174103 A1) in view of Kuwabara et al. (US 2024/0227843 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Schumacher and Kuwabara disclose the information provision device according to claim 1, but do not disclose wherein the content includes the first image or the second image, presents a question corresponding to the type of the action before performing the action, and does not require an answer to the question.
Kahn discloses that it was known to show a driver, in a coaching context, images and questions regarding driving behavior (See [221]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination further with the known methods of Kahn in order to train drivers predictably resulting in the first image or the second image, presents a question corresponding to the type of the action before performing the action, and does not require an answer to the question by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of coaching drivers as suggested by Kahn.
Regarding claim 4, Schumacher and Kuwabara further disclose the information provision device according to claim 2, wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion on the basis of the image captured by the imaging part and the behavior of the vehicle (See analysis of claim 1 with respect to Kuwabara), and wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion by inputting the image and the behavior of the vehicle to a trained model which has been trained to output a type of the action when the image and the behavior of the vehicle are input thereto (See Schumacher Fig 5, Fig 7, and [0061-0063] [0073-0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Schumacher Kuwabara and Kahn further disclose the information provision device according to claim 2, further comprising a gaze detecting part configured to detect a direction of a gaze of the driver ,wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion on the basis of information indicating the image captured by the imaging part, the behavior of the vehicle, and the direction of the gaze, and wherein the determination part determines whether driving of the vehicle performed by the driver is a desirable action or an undesirable action with respect to the predetermined criterion by inputting the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze to a trained model which has been trained to output a type of the action when the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze are input thereto (See Schumacher Fig 5, [0059-0060] and [0062] ).
Regarding claim 8, Schumacher Kuwabara and Kahn further disclose the information provision device according to claim 6, wherein the trained model is a model which has been trained using training data, wherein the training data includes the image, the behavior of the vehicle, the information indicating the direction of the gaze, and correct-answer data, and wherein the correct-answer data is information indicating a type of an action based on a combination of the image, the behavior of the vehicle, and the information indicating the direction of the gaze (See Schumacher [0061] [0074-0075] images of distracted and not distracted driving used as training data.).
Regarding claim 10, Schumacher Kuwabara and Kahn The information provision device according to claim 8, wherein the trained model outputs information indicating that the undesirable action has been performed when the behavior of the vehicle deviates from the criterion based on the situation in the image by a predetermined value or more, or wherein the trained model outputs information indicating that the undesirable action has been performed when the direction of the gaze deviates from a criterion direction based on the situation in the image by a predetermined value or more (See Schumacher [0037-0038] [0060] [0062] gaze outside of an alert area for an amount of time that exceeds a predefined amount of time).
Regarding claim 12, Schumacher Kuwabara and Kahn further disclose the information provision device according to claim 2, wherein the detection part is mounted in the vehicle or a device installed in the vehicle (See Schumacher [0034-0035] [0049] vehicle sensors), and wherein the determination part is provided in a device other than the vehicle(See Schumacher [0033] [0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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 Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights