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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on July 27, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-6 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 3 over claim 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,049,571 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1 over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,710,609 is withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1.
The previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained. The previous rejection of cancelled claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant suggests that the claim is not directed to a mental process (Applicant Remarks pg. 6). However, as indicated in the 101 analysis below, calculating a driving characteristic, estimating emotional stability, determining if the estimated emotional stability is higher than a threshold, and setting a notification format based on the estimated emotional stability may be performed mentally. A person can mentally calculate a driving characteristic of a driver based on observations of a driver while driving, estimate emotional stability based on the calculated driving characteristic, determine if the estimated emotional stability meets a criteria or threshold, and mentally determine how to adjust communication with a driver based on the estimated emotional stability meeting or not meeting the criteria or threshold. Accordingly, in step 2A Prong 2, outputting a notification to a user is extra solution activity, i.e. generic outputting, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, outputting a notification to a user is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the art. See US 9,135,803 in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, in step 2B, this limitation does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Applicant appears to argue that even if amended claim 1 recites a mental process the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a technological improvement in adaptive notification control (Applicant Remarks pgs. 6-7). However, an improvement to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the processor and method of claim 1 amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the previous rejections of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained.
The previous rejections of claims 1, 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claim 1. However, new rejections of claims 1, 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are set forth below.
The previous rejections of claims 2 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in consideration of cancelled claim 2 and amended independent claim 1. However, a new rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is set forth below.
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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 Analysis:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a device, which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites: An information processing device comprising a processor configured to:
calculate a driving characteristic of a user from driving data related to driving of a vehicle;
estimate emotional stability of the user based on the calculated driving characteristic of the user;
determine whether the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value;
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value,
set a first notification format, the setting of the first notification format includes setting a representation format of a notification to a colloquial format, the notification being a notification of information associated with the driving characteristic of the user, and
output the notification to the user via an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, according to the set first notification format; and
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher than a predetermined threshold value,
set a second notification format, the setting of the second notification format includes setting the representation format of the notification to a sentence-language format, and
output the notification to the user via a mobile terminal owned by the user, according to the set second notification format.
The limitation highlighted in claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitation of claim 1 highlighted above merely consists of calculating a driving characteristic of a user from driving data related to driving of a vehicle, estimating emotional stability of the user based on the calculated driving characteristic of the user, determining if the estimated emotional stability is higher than a threshold, and setting a notification format to a first or second notification format based a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher or not higher than the threshold. This is the equivalent of a person mentally calculating a driving characteristic of a driver based on observations of a driver while driving, estimating a drivers emotional stability based on the calculated driving characteristic, determining if the estimated emotional stability meets a criteria or threshold, and mentally determining how to adjust communication with a driver by choosing a first or second notification format based on the estimated emotional stability meeting or not meeting the criteria or threshold. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites: An information processing device comprising a processor configured to:
calculate a driving characteristic of a user from driving data related to driving of a vehicle;
estimate emotional stability of the user based on the calculated driving characteristic of the user;
determine whether the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value;
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value,
set a first notification format, the setting of the first notification format includes setting a representation format of a notification to a colloquial format, the notification being a notification of information associated with the driving characteristic of the user, and
output the notification to the user via an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, according to the set first notification format; and
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher than a predetermined threshold value,
set a second notification format, the setting of the second notification format includes setting the representation format of the notification to a sentence-language format, and
output the notification to the user via a mobile terminal owned by the user, according to the set second notification format.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The additional elements underlined above do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The step of outputting a notification is recited at a high level of generality (as a generic outputting of information such as displaying or transmitting of information) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity.
Further, the information processing device comprising a processor and the method amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps of calculating a driving characteristic of a user from driving data related to driving of a vehicle, estimating emotional stability of the user based on the calculated driving characteristic of the user, determining if the estimated emotional stability is higher than a threshold, and setting a notification format to a first or second notification format based a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher or not higher than the threshold are performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of outputting a notification to a user is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Notifications are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by processors. See US 9,135,803 in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-6 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,135,803 by Fields et al. (herein after “Fields”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0073268 by Franke et al. (herein after “Franke”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, an information processing device comprising a processor (Fields col. 7 lines 53-55: the controller 204 includes a program memory 208, one or more microcontrollers or microprocessors (MP) 210; microprocessors 210 in Fig. 2) configured to:
calculate a driving characteristic of a user from driving data related to driving of a vehicle (Fields col. 11 lines 11-16: When in operation, the method 300 collects sensor data about the vehicle operator 106, movement of the vehicle 108, and the environment in which the vehicle 108 is traveling (block 306) and processes the sensor data to determine whether the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 308); Fig. 3);
estimate emotional stability of the user based on the calculated driving characteristic of the user (Fields col. 4 lines 16-22: the term "impairment" refers to any of a number of conditions that may reduce vehicle operator performance. A vehicle operator may be impaired if the vehicle operator is drowsy, asleep, distracted, intoxicated, ill, injured, suffering from a sudden onset of a medical condition, or in an impaired emotional state such as anxiety, agitation, aggression, nervousness, hyperactivity, or mania);
determine whether the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields col 11 lines 14-16: processes the sensor data to determine whether the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 308); Fields col. 14 lines 54-58: if the drowsiness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 15 lines 32-36: if the distractedness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 16 lines 28-32: if the total anxiety score is below a minimum threshold value (e.g., 20 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is likewise impaired due to anxiety (block 310));
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields: transition from 310 to 316 in Fig. 3),
set a first notification format, (Fields: client application pages in Figs. 7-13; Examiner interprets the system of Fields to display the client application pages in instances where no driver impairment is determined), and
output the notification to the user via an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle, according to the set first notification format (Fields col. 20 lines 22-27: While FIGS. 7-13 depict client application pages or screens being displayed on the display 202 of the mobile device 110, it will be understood that the client application pages or screens could be displayed on additional displays, including displays 202 of the on-board computer 114); and
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields col. 14 lines 54-58: if the drowsiness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 15 lines 32-36: if the distractedness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 16 lines 28-32: if the total anxiety score is below a minimum threshold value (e.g., 20 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is likewise impaired due to anxiety (block 310)),
set a second notification format (Fields col 17 line 59 – col. 8 line 4: The response may also consist of limiting the presentation of information or disruptions from external sources, such as e-mail, SMS text messages, news alerts, weather information, social media updates, phone calls, or other incoming communications or notifications presented by the mobile device 110 or the on-board computer 114. When an impairment due to distractedness has been determined at block 308, the system 100 may delay presenting some or all types of incoming communications with the mobile device 110 or the on-board computer 114 until such time as the vehicle operator 106 is no longer impaired. The response may also consist of grouping incoming communications or notifications to reduce distraction; Fields col. 19 lines 44-48: Where a response involves the presentation of text (e.g., an alert, recommendation, e-mail, SMS text message, news story, status update through a social networking service, etc.), such text may be presented as a computer-generated spoken version of the text),
output the notification to the user via a mobile terminal owned by the user, according to the set second notification format (Fields col 19 lines 25-30: Depending upon the response determined in block 312, the mobile device 110, on-board computer 114, or server 140 may cause the presentation of an alert, a stimulus, or a recommendation to the vehicle operator 106 using the speakers 122 or 246, the display 202, or another presentation device in the vehicle 108).
It is noted that Fields fails to particularly disclose the setting of the first notification format includes setting a representation format of a notification to a colloquial format and the setting of the second notification format includes setting the representation format of the notification to a sentence-language format.
However, Franke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the setting of the first notification format includes setting a representation format of a notification to a colloquial format and the setting of the second notification format includes setting the representation format of the notification to a sentence-language format (Franke ¶ [0026]: Provision is preferably made for the communication function to adapt a communication behavior of the dialog format depending on the user behavior profile. In this way, language usage in the dialog with the user can be adapted depending on the responses and the behavior of the user. In particular, a dialog format with a user can be, for example, formal or colloquial depending on the user behavior profile).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining if a driver is impaired and adjusting communications to the driver based on monitoring the driver and a vehicle of Fields to include the setting of a dialog format based on a behavior of a user of Franke with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to present information that is relevant and of interest to a user based on user behavior (Franke ¶ [0011]).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,135,803 by Fields et al. (herein after “Fields”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0073268 by Franke et al. (herein after “Franke”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0221385 by Jiang (herein after “Jiang”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Fields discloses determining information that is displayed to a driver including limiting communications based on determining an impairment score for a driver exceeds a threshold but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a notification timing.
However, Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a notification timing (Jiang ¶ [0057]: The information recommendation module 320 may be configured to determine information that needs to be recommended to a driver. The determination of the information to be recommended may include determining a type of the information to be recommended, determining the content of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation time of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation frequency of the information to be recommended, etc., or any combination thereof).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining if a driver is impaired and adjusting communications to the driver based on monitoring the driver and a vehicle of Fields modified by the setting of a dialog format based on a behavior of a user of Franke to further include the determination of a time for information to be recommended to a driver of Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide driving safety tips based on driving behavior to improve safety awareness and reduce traffic accidents (Jiang ¶ [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Fields discloses determining information that is displayed to a driver including limiting communications based on determining an impairment score for a driver exceeds a threshold but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a type of an item of information that the user is to be notified.
However, Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a type of an item of information that the user is to be notified (Jiang ¶ [0057]: The information recommendation module 320 may be configured to determine information that needs to be recommended to a driver. The determination of the information to be recommended may include determining a type of the information to be recommended, determining the content of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation time of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation frequency of the information to be recommended, etc., or any combination thereof).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining if a driver is impaired and adjusting communications to the driver based on monitoring the driver and a vehicle of Fields modified by the setting of a dialog format based on a behavior of a user of Franke to further include the determination of a type of information to be recommended to a driver of Jiang with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide driving safety tips based on driving behavior to improve safety awareness and reduce traffic accidents (Jiang ¶ [0003]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,135,803 by Fields et al. (herein after “Fields”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0073268 by Franke et al. (herein after “Franke”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0394808 by Vanbrocklin et al. (herein after “Vanbrocklin”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 4, it is noted that Fields discloses determining information that is displayed to a driver including limiting communications based on determining an impairment score for a driver exceeds a threshold but fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a number of items of information that the user is to be notified.
However, Vanbrocklin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein each of the setting of the first notification format and the setting of the second notification format include setting a number of items of information that the user is to be notified (Vanbrocklin ¶ [0115]: The AI-driven customization of the notification can control such features as the amount of information to include in the notification, the frequency of notification, a preferred formatting of the notification, the target device to which the notification is delivered, or other such notification features).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining if a driver is impaired and adjusting communications to the driver based on monitoring the driver and a vehicle of Fields modified by the setting of a dialog format based on a behavior of a user of Franke to further include the AI-driven customization of a notification that determines an amount of information to include in a notification of Vanbrocklin with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to deliver proactive customized notifications or other information to a customer (Vanbrocklin ¶ [0099]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,135,803 by Fields et al. (herein after “Fields”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0073268 by Franke et al. (herein after “Franke”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0221385 by Jiang (herein after “Jiang”), further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0136103 by Puphal et al. (herein after “Puphal”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fields discloses wherein the processor is configured to:
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields col 11 lines 14-16: processes the sensor data to determine whether the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 308); Fields col. 14 lines 54-58: if the drowsiness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 15 lines 32-36: if the distractedness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 16 lines 28-32: if the total anxiety score is below a minimum threshold value (e.g., 20 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is likewise impaired due to anxiety (block 310)), set a notification delay lower than in response to the determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields col 17 line 64 – col. 18 line 5: When an impairment due to distractedness has been determined at block 308, the system 100 may delay presenting some or all types of incoming communications with the mobile device 110 or the on-board computer 114 until such time as the vehicle operator 106 is no longer impaired. The response may also consist of grouping incoming communications or notifications to reduce distraction; Jiang ¶ [0057]: The information recommendation module 320 may be configured to determine information that needs to be recommended to a driver. The determination of the information to be recommended may include determining a type of the information to be recommended, determining the content of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation time of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation frequency of the information to be recommended, etc., or any combination thereof); Examiner interprets Fields to disclose limiting or delaying communications (lower frequency of notifications) when a driver is determined to be impaired and not limiting or delaying communications (higher frequency of notifications) when a driver is determined not to be impaired); and
in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher than a predetermined threshold value (Fields col 11 lines 14-16: processes the sensor data to determine whether the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 308); Fields col. 14 lines 54-58: if the drowsiness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 15 lines 32-36: if the distractedness score is below an impairment threshold value (e.g., 90 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is impaired (block 310); Fields col. 16 lines 28-32: if the total anxiety score is below a minimum threshold value (e.g., 20 out of 100), the vehicle operator impairment detection and mitigation system 100 may determine that the vehicle operator 106 is likewise impaired due to anxiety (block 310)), notify the user of positively evaluated information (Fields col 19 lines 25-30: Depending upon the response determined in block 312, the mobile device 110, on-board computer 114, or server 140 may cause the presentation of an alert, a stimulus, or a recommendation to the vehicle operator 106 using the speakers 122 or 246, the display 202, or another presentation device in the vehicle 108).
It is noted that Fields fails to explicitly disclose in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher set a notification frequency of negatively evaluated information higher than in response to the determination that the estimated emotional stability is not higher.
However, Jiang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches set a notification frequency (Jiang ¶ [0057]: The information recommendation module 320 may be configured to determine information that needs to be recommended to a driver. The determination of the information to be recommended may include determining a type of the information to be recommended, determining the content of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation time of the information to be recommended, determining a recommendation frequency of the information to be recommended, etc., or any combination thereof).
Further, Puphal, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to a determination that the estimated emotional stability is higher (Puphal ¶ [0028]: A human factor may include information on a human state, e.g. a physical state or a mental state of a human person that influences the behavior of human when acting in the environment. A mental state of a human may include an emotional state, a focus of the human, a distraction of the human, e.g., a distraction from a main driving task, or similar human factors. The human acting in the environment may include in particular the manner how the human operates a vehicle or how the human grasps the environment, including, e.g. information output via a human machine interface to the human; Puphal ¶ [0030]: Estimating a risk associated with signaling (communicating) information on at least one behavior includes estimating (determining) an impact of outputting the information on at least one behavior, e.g., a warning of a predicted collision, on decision making of a human person with relevance to the behavior or the further evolvement of current scenario in the environment) set a notification . (Puphal ¶ [0032]-[0033]: The method enables to estimate a risk, and, in case of high risk, to evaluate an impact of the communication on a driver with human factors. If a communication is deemed beneficial, the method proceeds with transmitting an event signal to the ego-agent or to other agents. Therefore, the amount of information communicated to the agent is limited to that information, from which the agent is actually benefitting. Providing unnecessary information is avoided. Acceptance of the assistance system will improve, as outputting annoying information is avoided). Examiner interprets Puphal to teach a system and method that estimates a risk based on human factors (e.g. physical and mental state of a driver), evaluates an impact of a communication to a driver based on the human factors and determines positive or negative information that should be included in communications based on the estimated risk and impact.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for determining if a driver is impaired and adjusting communications to the driver based on monitoring the driver and a vehicle of Fields modified by the setting of a dialog format based on a behavior of a user of Franke to further include the determination of a frequency for information to be recommended to a driver of Jiang and the risk estimation based on human factors for determining beneficial information that should be communicated to a driver of Puphal with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide driving safety tips based on driving behavior to improve safety awareness and reduce traffic accidents (Jiang ¶ [0003]) and to improve traffic safety by determining whether a communication to a driver is beneficial or not (Puphal ¶ [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
US 2017/0072850 discloses user profile parameters for notifications generated for a vehicle driver that include notification frequency, notification thresholds and updating a driving profile to show a trend in driving style (¶ [0075]).
US 2017/0291543 discloses customizing user notifications in order to best catch the attention of the user and communicate a notification message to a user including time to start a notification, volume and frequency of a notification, and duration of a notification (¶ [0135]).
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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
