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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 07/29/2026.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites that the alert event detection unit is configured to "detect a specific type of the alert event" and that the alert control unit is configured to control, "based on the detected specific type, the output of the alert corresponding to the alert event regardless of the alert control condition." Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, requires the alert control unit to control the output for the alert for the alert event "based on the alert control condition." Because every detected alert event is of some type, claim 8 sets forth no condition distinguishing alert events whose output is controlled based on the alert control condition, as required by claim 1, from alert events whose output is controlled regardless of the alert control condition, as required by claim 8. It is therefore unclear whether, and under what circumstances, the output is controlled based on the alert control condition or regardless of it, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as requiring that, when an alert event of a particular type is detected, the alert control unit controls the output of the alert for that event based on its type regardless of the alert control condition, consistent with [0161] and [0174] of applicant's specification as published (US 2026/0045152 A1, hereinafter the "PGPUB"). Applicant may consider restoring conditional language such as "in a case where a predetermined type of the alert event is detected."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9–16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1 - newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Gunaratne discloses an information processing apparatus (an apparatus to adaptively warn a driver, implemented as an electronic control unit (ECU) or computer including a microprocessor 805 executing processes stored in a computer readable storage medium 815. See [0005], [0039], [0108]–[0109].), comprising:
an alert event detection unit configured to detect an alert event that includes an event for which an alert is an output (Gunaratne discloses module 201 and external sensors 211 that sense external events and objects, such as another vehicle braking suddenly, a pedestrian jumping in front of the vehicle, a cyclist in a blind spot, a stop sign, or a traffic light change, and estimate a hazard level for which hazard alerts 209 are output. See [0062]–[0066], [0073], [0084]; FIGS. 2–3.);
an alert control condition detection unit configured to detect an alert control condition that includes a condition to control the output for the alert (Gunaratne discloses sensors 210 inside the driver cabin 207, module 202, and driver state unit 203, which detect the driver's behavior and state; their outputs are used by the collision criticality assessment module 204 and the adaptive actuator interface 205 to decide how to actuate the hazard alerts 209. See [0046]–[0047], [0084]–[0085], [0087], [0093].), wherein the alert control condition comprises an alertness level of a driver (Gunaratne discloses the driver state, determined from facial features and facial motion patterns, voice cues, and physiological sensory estimates, representing high and low arousal states of the driver, see [0093]–[0097]; including drowsy or fatigued states, see [0087]. Gunaratne expressly characterizes the driver's status as "the driver's general level of alertness to control the vehicle." See [0044].) and a field of view direction of the driver (Gunaratne discloses the eyes-off-the-roadway (EOR) parameter, calculated based on the gaze locations and fixation duration of the driver's eyes, and the head-not-positioned-straight-forward parameter. See [0057]–[0058], [0063]; FIG. 2. The PGPUB describes the field of view direction condition as whether the driver is looking around the HMI inside the vehicle rather than around the vehicle (see [0154] of the PGPUB), which corresponds to Gunaratne's determination of whether the driver's gaze is off the roadway.); and
an alert control unit configured to control the output for the alert for the alert event based on the alert control condition (Gunaratne discloses that the collision criticality assessment module 204 generates collision severity information based on the driver's secondary task engagement, the state of the driver, and the level of hazard; the adaptive actuator interface 205 decides how to actuate the hazard alerts 209, including modes of actuation, types of actuation, and frequency and amplitude of actuation; and the actuator controller 206 controls the hazard alerts 209. See [0084]–[0085]. The types of hazard alerts are selected based on the state of the driver, see [0087], and the adaptive actuator interface 205 changes the mode, type, and timing of the hazard alert, see [0099].).
Regarding claim 9, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the alert control unit is further configured to: estimate a necessity of the alert based on the alert control condition (Gunaratne discloses that the collision criticality assessment module 204 generates collision severity information based on the driver's secondary task engagement and the state of the driver, see [0084]–[0085], and determines the driver's ability to respond to the external hazard and "whether or not activating a hazard alert helps the driver to notice the hazardous situation," see [0070]–[0071].); and control the output for the alert based on the necessity of the alert (Gunaratne discloses that the adaptive actuator interface 205 decides how to actuate the hazard alerts 209, including modes, types, and frequency and amplitude of actuation, based on the collision severity information from module 204, see [0085], and changes the mode, type, and timing of the hazard alert based on the driver's ability to react, see [0099]; for example, when the driver is engaged in secondary activities and weakly perceives an external hazard, the hazard alerts are actuated at an early stage, see [0075].).
Regarding claim 10, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the alert control condition further includes a condition independent of the alert event (Gunaratne discloses that, in addition to the driver's alertness and gaze, the alert control condition includes the driver's experience, age, vision, and length of time driving, which "can be used by the adaptive warning mechanism to decide the most effective methods to alert a driver," see [0044]; and the driver's engagement in secondary activities such as texting, talking on a cell phone, eating, or drinking, see [0054], [0078]. These conditions exist independently of the external hazard; Gunaratne notes that the driver's engagement in secondary activities is relevant "no matter an external hazard exists or not." See [0070].).
Regarding claim 11, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: an alert output unit configured to output the alert (Gunaratne discloses hazard alerts 209, controlled by the actuator controller 206 and placed inside the driver cabin 207, which output the warning to the driver. See [0005], [0084], [0086], [0111].).
Regarding claim 12, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the alert output unit is further configured to output the alert based on at least one of visual information, auditory information, or tactile information (Gunaratne discloses visual hazard alerts 209b displaying warning messages and icons in different colors and/or contrast; audible hazard alerts 209c generating alarms with varying tone and/or pitch; and haptic hazard alerts 209d generating vibrations in the driver's seat, steering wheel, and/or headrest area. See [0017], [0086].).
Regarding claim 13, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the alert includes an alert of a mobile body (Gunaratne discloses hazard alerts issued to the driver of a vehicle 208. See [0039], [0084]. Gunaratne further discloses application to operators of a train, an airplane, or a ship. See [0040]. A vehicle is a mobile body.).
Regarding claim 14, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the alert control condition detection unit is further configured to detect the alert control condition based on at least one of a situation around the mobile body, a situation inside the mobile body, a state of the mobile body, or a state of an occupant of the mobile body (Gunaratne discloses sensors 210 implemented inside the driver cabin 207 of the vehicle 208, including imaging sensors, pressure sensors on the seat and headrest, touch sensors on the steering wheel, and microphones, that detect the driver's behavior and engagement in secondary activities, and the driver state is determined from facial features, voice cues, and physiological sensory estimates. See [0046]–[0047], [0084], [0093]. The driver is an occupant of the mobile body, and the detected behavior and state are a state of an occupant of the mobile body.).
Regarding claim 15, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the alert event detection unit is further configured to detect the alert event based on at least one of a situation around the mobile body, a situation inside the mobile body, a state of the mobile body, or a state of an occupant of the mobile body (Gunaratne discloses external sensors 211, including cameras, ultrasonic sensors, laser sensors, radar systems, and sound detectors, that sense external events and objects in the vicinity of the vehicle, such as another vehicle braking, a pedestrian jumping in front of the vehicle, a cyclist in a blind spot, a stop sign, a traffic light status change, and unsafe weather conditions, constituting a situation around the mobile body. See [0062]–[0063], [0084]; FIG. 2. The hazard level is further estimated by combining the external events with the vehicle's internal parameters, such as vehicle speed, acceleration, and the condition of the brakes and tires, constituting a state of the mobile body. See [0066].).
Regarding claim 16, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the mobile body includes a vehicle (Gunaratne discloses vehicle 208. See [0039]–[0040], [0084].).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1) for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 18 recites a method incorporating the same limitations recited in apparatus claim 1, and the limitations of claim 18 correspond directly to the operations and functions of claim 1 in method form. Gunaratne further discloses a method for adaptively warning a driver. See [0011]; FIG. 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as anticipated by Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1) for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 18. Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that incorporate the same limitations recited in apparatus claim 1 and method claim 18, and the limitations of claim 19 correspond directly to the operations and functions of claims 1 and 18 in medium form. Gunaratne further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium including executable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute the method. See [0010], [0109].
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(s) 2–6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1) in view of Murayama et al. (US 20170219356 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the alert control unit controls the output for the alert based on the alert control condition, including changing the mode, type, timing, frequency, and amplitude of the hazard alerts, rapidly increasing the tone of an audible alert so that it becomes severe, and combining an audible alarm with tactile feedback. See [0076], [0085], [0099]. However, Gunaratne does not expressly disclose wherein the alert control unit is further configured to: set an output level of the alert based on the alert control condition; and control the output for the alert based on the output level.
In an analogous art, Murayama discloses a vehicle warning notification system in which a determination unit 170 sets an output level of a warning based on situation information representing the travelling situation of the vehicle, including the driving inclination of the driver. See [0062], [0068]–[0079]. The output levels are no warning, normal notification, and emphasized notification, in ascending priority. See [0072], [0074]. The output for the warning is then controlled based on the set output level: the normal notification displays the warning in a normal displaying manner, and the emphasized notification flashes the warning or displays the warning with an alarm. See [0073]. In addition, the emphasized notification uses a more urgent voice announcement and stronger vibration than the normal notification. See [0142].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gunaratne's alert control unit to set an output level of the alert based on the alert control condition (the driver's alertness level and field of view direction), and to control the output for the alert based on that output level, as taught by Murayama. Both references are directed to vehicle driver warning systems that adapt the warning output to conditions affecting the need for the warning. Gunaratne seeks to warn the driver effectively without annoying, panicking, or distracting the driver. See Gunaratne [0088], [0099]. Murayama teaches that grading the warning into discrete output levels reduces unnecessary warnings while emphasizing the warning when the situation warrants. See Murayama [0153]. Organizing Gunaratne's adaptive alert outputs into discrete output levels as taught by Murayama is the application of a known technique to a known system, yielding the predictable result of an alert apparatus that selects among graded output levels based on the driver's condition.
Regarding claim 3, Gunaratne in view of Murayama discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein recognizability of the alert is increased based on the output level is increased (Murayama discloses that at the higher output level (emphasized notification) the warning is issued by "further emphasizing the warning," namely by flashing the warning or displaying the warning with an alarm, whereas at the lower output level (normal notification) the warning is displayed in a normal displaying manner. See [0073]. The emphasized notification further uses a more urgent voice announcement and stronger vibration than the normal notification. See [0142]. A flashing display is inherently more visually conspicuous than a static display, a stronger vibration is inherently more perceptible than a weaker vibration, and an added alarm is inherently more noticeable than a display alone. Accordingly, the higher output level necessarily produces greater recognizability. See MPEP 2112. Gunaratne similarly discloses increasing the severity of the audible alert tone and adding tactile feedback to the audible alarm. See Gunaratne [0076]. The rationale for combining Gunaratne and Murayama is the same as set forth for claim 2.).
Regarding claim 4, Gunaratne in view of Murayama discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the alert control unit is further configured to: estimate a necessity of the alert based on the alert control condition (Gunaratne determines, based on the driver's secondary task engagement and the state of the driver, the collision criticality and "whether or not activating a hazard alert helps the driver to notice the hazardous situation." See Gunaratne [0070], [0084]–[0085].), wherein the necessity of the alert includes a first necessity and a second necessity; set a first output level based on the first necessity; and set a second output level, higher than the first output level, based on the second necessity, wherein the second necessity is greater than the first necessity (Murayama discloses that the determination unit 170 determines whether the warning is necessary based on the situation information. See Murayama [0131]–[0132], [0151]. Murayama further discloses setting a first output level (normal notification) when the situation information indicates a first necessity, for example stormy weather alone, see [0078], and setting a second, higher output level (emphasized notification) when the situation information indicates a greater second necessity, for example stormy weather and a detected vehicle skid, see [0077]. The emphasized notification has a higher priority than the normal notification. See [0074]. The rationale for combining Gunaratne and Murayama is the same as set forth for claim 2.).
Regarding claim 5, Gunaratne in view of Murayama discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the alert control unit is further configured to increase a plurality of types of the output for the alert as the output level is increased (The phrase "increase a plurality of types of the output" is reasonably interpreted as encompassing either (i) increasing the number of types of output, or (ii) increasing a plurality of types of output, such as their intensity, as the output level increases. The prior art teaches both. Under interpretation (i), Murayama discloses that at the lower output level the warning is output by display alone, whereas at the higher output level the warning may be displayed together with an alarm, adding an auditory type of output. See Murayama [0073], [0142]. Gunaratne likewise discloses combining an audible alarm with tactile feedback to escalate the warning. See Gunaratne [0076]. Under interpretation (ii), Murayama discloses that at the higher output level the voice announcement becomes more urgent and the vibration becomes stronger than at the lower output level, so that a plurality of types of output are increased. See Murayama [0142]. The rationale for combining Gunaratne and Murayama is the same as set forth for claim 2.).
Regarding claim 6, Gunaratne in view of Murayama discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the alert control unit is further configured to control such that the output of the alert is common for each of a plurality of output levels regardless of a type of the alert event (The claim is interpreted as requiring that, for each output level, the output of the alert is common regardless of the type of the alert event. A reading under which the output is the same at every output level would contradict claim 2, which requires the output to be controlled based on the output level, and is therefore not reasonable. Consistent with [0180], [0185]–[0189], and [0199] of the PGPUB, the "output" that is common is understood as the manner of outputting the alert, such as display, blinking, sound, and vibration, not the content of the warning message, which varies with the alert event even in Applicant's disclosure. Murayama discloses two output levels, each associated with its own manner of output: the normal notification displays the warning in a normal displaying manner, and the emphasized notification flashes the warning or displays the warning with an alarm. See [0072]–[0073], [0142]. These manners of output are tied to the output level and are applied across all disclosed risk event types, including skids, sharp turns, emergency braking, lane reductions, construction work, rear-end collisions, and running out into traffic. See [0057], [0072]–[0079]. Murayama does not disclose varying the manner of output at a given output level according to the type of risk event. The rationale for combining Gunaratne and Murayama is the same as set forth for claim 2.).
Regarding claim 17, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses that the adaptive warning mechanism may be implemented in a vehicle, machine, user-interface device, or monitoring device (see [0108]), but does not expressly disclose wherein the alert includes an alert of a portable information terminal.
In an analogous art, Murayama discloses a portable terminal apparatus 400, such as a smart phone or tablet terminal, that includes the determination unit 170 and a display unit 410 that displays the warning. See [0175]–[0182], [0190], [0193]. Murayama further discloses that the warning notification system may be the portable terminal apparatus 400 itself. See [0205]; see also Murayama claim 23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Gunaratne's alert on a portable information terminal, as taught by Murayama. Murayama teaches that implementing the warning function on a portable terminal allows the warning service to be provided easily and continuously even when the vehicle is replaced. See Murayama [0195], [0204]. Gunaratne already contemplates implementation on user-interface devices. See Gunaratne [0108]. The combination yields the predictable result of an alert of a portable information terminal.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1) in view of Yazaki (JP 2018206249 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, and further discloses that the types of hazard alerts actuated are selected based on the state of the driver. See [0044], [0087]. However, Gunaratne does not expressly disclose wherein the alert control unit is further configured to control the output of the alert for the alert event based on the alert control condition regardless of a type of the alert event. Specifically, Gunaratne's collision criticality assessment incorporates the hazard level of the particular external event, see [0084]–[0085], and the warning is determined differently for different scenarios, such as car-following, objects approaching the vehicle, traffic signs and lights, and pedestrians crossing the vehicle's path, see [0102]–[0107]; FIGS. 8–16. Gunaratne does not expressly disclose that the output is controlled based on the alert control condition independently of the type of the external event.
In an analogous art, Yazaki discloses a vehicle alarm output system in which the output of the alarm, specifically the warning content information D1 and the warning sound volume information D2, is determined based on a condition associated with the driver, namely the driver's past warning count Nw, via the alarm state control table 52. See [0051]–[0055], [0068]–[0069]. The determined D1 and D2 are held in the in-vehicle device and reflected in all subsequent alarm outputs. See [0060]. When the in-vehicle device detects any predetermined alarm condition, such as speed excess, sudden start, or sudden acceleration or deceleration, it outputs the alarm according to the same held D1 and D2, regardless of which type of alarm event was detected. See [0052], [0061]–[0064]. Yazaki thus teaches controlling the output of an alert based on a driver-related alert control condition regardless of the type of the alert event.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gunaratne's alert control unit to control the output of the alert based on the alert control condition (the driver's alertness level and field of view direction) regardless of the type of the alert event, as taught by Yazaki, such that the types and modes of hazard alerts are selected based on the driver's condition uniformly across all types of external events. Both references are directed to adapting vehicle alarm output to the condition or characteristics of the driver. Gunaratne selects the type of alert based on the driver's ability to perceive it; for example, a sleepy driver may not notice visual alerts, so sound or vibration is used. See Gunaratne [0044], [0087]. This rationale depends on the driver's condition, not on the type of external event, and thus suggests applying the driver-based selection uniformly across event types. Yazaki expressly teaches such uniform application, in which a single output setting optimized for the driver is held and applied to every type of alarm event, which allows the appropriate output to be determined by a simple process. See Yazaki [0017], [0025], [0060], [0063]. The combination requires no more than applying a known technique from Yazaki to a known system in Gunaratne, yielding the predictable result of an alert apparatus that controls the output of the alert based on the driver's condition regardless of the type of alert event.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1) in view of Sato (JP 2015001776 A).
Regarding claim 8, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, claim 8 is interpreted as requiring that, when an alert event of a particular type is detected, the alert control unit controls the output of the alert for that event based on its type regardless of the alert control condition. Under this interpretation, Gunaratne discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the alert event detection unit is further configured to detect a specific type of the alert event (the external event modules analyze sensed external events and objects to identify, for example, another vehicle braking, a pedestrian jumping in front of the vehicle, a cyclist in a blind spot, a stop sign, a traffic light status change, or unsafe weather conditions. See [0062]–[0063]; FIG. 2.). However, Gunaratne does not expressly disclose wherein the alert control unit is further configured to control, based on the detected specific type, the output of the alert corresponding to the alert event regardless of the alert control condition. In Gunaratne, the output of the hazard alerts is adapted based on the driver's engagement in secondary activities and the driver's state for each type of external event. See [0084]–[0085], [0099], [0102]–[0107].
In an analogous art, Sato discloses a vehicle driving assistance device 1 comprising an attention event detection unit 5 that detects a specific type of attention event by pattern-matching a detected sound against acoustic models registered for each generation source. The detectable types include a warning alarm notified by a failure of the host vehicle, emergency vehicle sirens, a railroad crossing sound, and a horn sound from a surrounding vehicle. See [0013], [0017]–[0018]. Based on the detected type, the driving support control unit 6 controls the output of the alert to correspond to that event, including displaying the host vehicle abnormality mark 8b for a vehicle failure or the ambulance mark 8d for an approaching ambulance, emphasizing the corresponding mark, and displaying the driving behavior to be performed in response. See [0020]–[0023], [0026]–[0028]. This event-specific output is determined by the detected type of the attention event and is not conditioned on any condition of the driver such as alertness or gaze direction. See [0025]–[0027]. Although Sato further discloses varying the LED emission color according to the urgency of the attention event, the urgency is determined from the distance to the source of the attention sound, that is, from the detected event itself, and not from any separate alert control condition. See [0031]–[0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gunaratne such that, when a specific type of alert event is detected, the alert control unit controls the output of the alert to correspond to that event type regardless of the alert control condition, as taught by Sato. Both references are directed to vehicle driver alert systems. Sato teaches that for certain types of events, such as a failure of the host vehicle or an approaching emergency vehicle, an output specific to the event type, identifying the event and its direction and the action to be taken, allows the driver to grasp the event instantaneously and respond accurately. See Sato [0027], [0029], [0036]–[0037]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying this event-specific output in Gunaratne ensures that such events are communicated in a form tailored to the event itself rather than being modified by the driver-condition-based adaptation. The combination requires no more than applying a known technique from Sato to a known system in Gunaratne, yielding the predictable result of an alert apparatus in which specific types of alert events receive event-specific output regardless of the alert control condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment of claim 19 to recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium is sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 18, and 19 (Remarks, pp. 9–10) 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. Applicant argues that Murayama does not disclose that "the alert control condition comprises an alertness level of a driver and a field of view direction of the driver," a limitation introduced by the present amendment. This limitation is taught by Gunaratne (US 20140125474 A1), as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 above.
Regarding dependent claims 2–6 and 9–17, Applicant argues that these claims are patentable based on their dependence from claim 1, and further that each claim "separately recites subject matter not described or suggested by Murayama" (Remarks, p. 10). The arguments based on dependency are moot for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. The remaining assertion is a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, and therefore does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). These arguments are not persuasive. Murayama continues to be relied upon in the rejection of claims 2–6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above, only for the teachings set forth therein, none of which were specifically challenged by Applicant.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant argues that Yazaki does not remedy the deficiencies of Murayama with respect to amended claim 1 (Remarks, p. 10). This argument is moot because claim 7 is now rejected over Gunaratne in view of Yazaki, and Yazaki is not relied upon for any limitation of claim 1. Applicant's further assertion that claim 7 "recites subject matter not described or suggested by cited references" is a general allegation that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that Sato does not remedy the deficiencies of Murayama and Yazaki with respect to amended claim 1 (Remarks, p. 10). This argument is moot because claim 8, which now depends from claim 1, is rejected over Gunaratne in view of Sato, and Sato is not relied upon for any limitation of claim 1. Applicant's further assertion that claim 8 "recites subject matter not described or suggested by cited references" is a general allegation that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights