Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 21, 22, 30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al (US 2019/0135295 A1).
As to claim 17, Sato et al discloses a driver condition detection system that judges that a driver is driving while distracted if the driver’s facial orientation or line of sight is maintained outside a threshold value range, and that discriminates a shape of a road and expands the threshold value range according to the shape of the road (Abstract). The claim is met as follows: A driver monitoring apparatus (see driver condition detection system of Figures 1 and 2) comprising: a reception unit that receives travel information of a vehicle that travels; ([0044], road discriminating part 24 that discriminates the road shape based on road information acquired by the navigation system 40) a sensor that is mounted inside the vehicle and detects a driver's face and gaze direction during vehicle travel ([0030] driver monitor camera 10 that captures an image of the face of the driver of a vehicle 80; [0034-0036] facial information detecting part 21 that detects the facial orientation and line of sight of the driver) ; and a processor that monitors the driver's gaze dispersion using the sensor (see ECU 20 and Figure 6 ‘flow chart showing control routine of processing for judging a driver condition: [0060-0061], step 203, the driver condition judging part judges whether the facial orientation or line of sight of the driver is within a threshold value range or outside of the range (i.e., gaze dispersion)), differently determines an attention focus region, to which the driver's gaze has to be directed for safe driving during the vehicle travel, on the received travel information, (see Figure 3 ‘flow chart fort showing a control routine of processing for setting a threshold value range, steps S103 and S105, the range is expanded in the left-right direction when the road shape is curved and expanded in the up down direction when the road shape is a slope; [0044], the road discriminating part 24 discriminates the road shape based on the road information acquired by the navigation system 40) and determines the driver's state corresponding to the driver's gaze dispersion, partially occurring within the attention focus region, based on the determination, (the result of steps S103, S105, and S106 is the setting of a threshold value range used to determine driver distraction, and in the case of a road shape being a curve or a slope, the determination is based on both an initial range and an expansion of that initial range) wherein the processor monitors the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the attention focus region based on the received travel information, ([0061], at step S204, the driving condition judging part 24 updates cumulative time period ET (ET which is cumulative time period that facial orientation or line of sight is maintained outside the threshold range and fine period delta t is the interval between executions of the routine; as indicated above, the threshold range is established based on the shape of the road as acquired by the navigation system 40) and wherein the determination of the attention focus region corresponds to determining one or more of a location of the attention focus region, a size of the attention focus region, a number of attention focus regions, or a duration of the driver's gaze fixation. (met at least by location and duration of facial orientation or line of sight as discussed above)
As to claim 18, Sato et al discloses: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processor determines the extent of the driver's gaze dispersion based on either the duration for which the driver's gaze direction remains within the attention focus region or the frequency with which the driver's gaze remains within the attention focus region. (met as discussed above---the duration that facial orientation or line of sight is maintained outside the threshold range directly relates to the corresponding time it is maintained inside the threshold range based on delta t)
As to claim 21, Sato et al disclose: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the processor changes the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion based on the travel information, and then, in response to the recognition that the cause of the change in the sensitivity level no longer exists, restores the attention focus region and the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion to the original states thereof, respectively. ([0047], the control routine of Figure 3 is repeatedly performed by ECU 20 at predetermined time intervals, including acquiring road information and setting the threshold value range---in this manner, when there is no longer a slope or curve in the road, the threshold value range is initialized)
As to claim 22, Sato et al discloses: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the sensor is a DMS camera that is installed on the front side of the interior of the vehicle and recognizes the driver's face and gaze direction, and wherein, in a case where it is determined that attentive driving is necessary depending on the driver's determined state, the processor transfers a corresponding alert signal to one or more output means. (see Figure 2, driver monitor camera 10 and Figure 1, facial information detecting part 21 and driver condition judging part 23; see also Figure 6, steps S206 and S207, [0046], [0063])
As to claim 30, The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the travel information includes information about the travel-related slope angle of the vehicle, and wherein, in response to the recognition that the travel-related slope angle of the vehicle deviates from a predetermine range, the processor expands the attention focus region and reduces the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the expanded attention focus region in proportion to the extent to which the travel-related slope angle of the vehicle deviates from the predetermined range. (SEE Figure 5, a relationship of a gradient of a slope and a predetermined amount; [0055], the predetermined amount is enlarged linearly as the gradient of the slope becomes larger)
As to claim 32, Sato et al discloses: A method of operating a driver monitoring apparatus, the method comprising: receiving travel information of a vehicle that travels; monitoring a driver's gaze dispersion by detecting the driver's face and gaze direction during vehicle travel using a sensor mounted in the vehicle; differently determining an attention focus region, to which the driver's gaze has to be directed for safe driving during the vehicle travel, based on the monitoring and the received travel information; adjusting the sensitivity level for a driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the determined attention focus region based on the received travel information; and determining whether or not attentive driving is necessary depending on the driver's state corresponding to the driver's gaze dispersion and outputting an alert based on the determination, wherein the determination of the attention focus region corresponds to determining one or more of a location of the attention focus region, a size of the attention focus region, a number of attention focus regions, or a duration of the driver's gaze fixation. (see the rejection of claims 17 and 22 above)
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) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2019/0135295 A1) in view of Bogner et al (US 2016/0104050 A1).
As to claim 26, Sato et al fails to disclose: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the travel information includes information about the accumulated travel time of the vehicle, and wherein, in a case where the accumulated travel time, detected after the vehicle starts to travel, reaches a predetermined range, the processor increases the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the attention focus region. Bogner et al teaches a system and method for monitoring a degree of attention of a driver of a vehicle in which driving time is a ‘journey situation parameter’ indicative of the degree of attentiveness [0020, 0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato et al with this teaching in order to account for the possibility of decreased attentiveness that can occur as driving time increases.
As to claim 27, Sato et al fails to disclose: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the travel information includes information about the travel speed of the vehicle, and wherein, in a case where the travel speed of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined range, the processor increases the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the attention focus region and adjusts the sensitivity level in such a manner as to increase in proportion to the travel speed of the vehicle. Bogner et al teaches a system and method for monitoring a degree of attention of a driver of a vehicle on the basis of a prescribed link between the speed of the vehicle and the period, such that a longer (shorter) period can be determined for lower (higher) speeds. It is possible for the period to be determined in a manner inversely proportional to the speed of the vehicle [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato et al with this teaching in order to account for the increased attentiveness that is required as speed increases.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (US 2019/0135295 A1) in view of Kim (US 2021/0124962 A1).
As to claim 28, Sato et al fails to disclose: The driver monitoring apparatus of claim 17, wherein the travel information includes angle information of a steering wheel of the vehicle, and wherein, when it is recognized that the angle of the steering wheel of the vehicle reaches or exceeds a predetermined range, the processor expands the attention focus region in a manner that corresponds to the travel direction of the vehicle, and monitors the driver's state by reducing the sensitivity level for the driver's gaze dispersion partially occurring within the expanded attention focus region. However, Kim teaches a method for determining inattention of a driver, Figure 7, in which a determination is made as to whether a face direction or gaze of a driver is within a second reference range (step S711), the second reference range being a basic determination range when driving is normally performed([0230]), and if not then a determination is made as to whether it is in a third range in consideration of the steering angle (steps S715-S717). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sato et al with this teaching in order to supplement the determination made in deriving road curve information from navigation system 40 when that information is not readily available.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, 23-25, 29, and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W MILLER whose telephone number is 571-272-7353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights