DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 19/186,650 filed on August 28, 2026 in which claims 1-3, 9, 13, and 17-19 were amended and claim 5 was cancelled.
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 Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam et al., US Publication 2021/0114603 (hereinafter Dadam) in view of Lee et al., US Publication 2025/0341999 (hereinafter Lee), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated May 29, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Dadam discloses a device comprising “a processor; and a memory coupled the processor.” (Dadam ¶ 32). Additionally, Dadam discloses “determine, based on a passenger status within a passenger environment of a vehicle, an energy reduction scheme comprising a plurality of different energy configurations for a subsystem of the vehicle, the plurality of different energy configurations comprising a first energy configuration and a second energy configuration” (Dadam ¶¶ 72, 75) by giving examples of selecting between multiple energy reduction schemes such as reducing the output of speakers or lighting power. Additionally, Dadam discloses “wherein the energy reduction scheme is configured to reduce power consumption of the subsystem with respect to the vehicle, wherein, in the first energy configuration, the subsystem is configured to consume more power than in the second energy configuration” (Dadam ¶ 75) where any combination of the various settings may be adjusted including those that reduce power such as lowering power output to lights and speakers. Because any combination may be selected, a configuration that lowered only the output to the speaker would consume more power than one that lowered both the output to the speakers and the lighting. Further, Dadam discloses “track a state of the passenger status among a set of passenger status states” (Dadam ¶ 72) by tracking various states of the passenger such as yawning and the ration of eye opening time to eye closing time. Moreover, Dadam discloses “wherein a first passenger status state of the set of passenger status states is associated with the first energy configuration and a second passenger status state of the set of passenger status states is associated with the second energy configuration” (Dadam ¶ 79, Fig. 11) where the system loops as the occupant is falling asleep and adjusts “at least one” setting each time. This indicates that each status state is associated with adjusting at least one setting. Likewise, Dadam discloses “wherein a first transition from the first passenger status state to the second passenger status state requires a … dwell time in the first passenger status state, wherein a second transition from the second passenger status state to the first passenger status state requires a … dwell time” (Dadam ¶ 77) where the method waits a predetermined amount of time before rechecking if the occupant is asleep. Finally, Dadam discloses “control a configuration setting of the subsystem of the vehicle based on the energy reduction scheme according to one of the plurality of different energy configurations that is associated with the state of the passenger status” (Dadam ¶ 75) by lowering the lighting power.
Dadam does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of multiple dwell times with the second dwell time being shorter than the first and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein a first transition from the first passenger status state to the second passenger status state requires a first dwell time in the first passenger status state, wherein a second transition from the second passenger status state to the first passenger status state requires a second dwell time that is shorter than the first dwell time.”
However, Lee discloses a device comprising “a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor.” (Lee ¶ 175). Additionally, Lee discloses “wherein the processor is configured, based on instructions stored in the memory, to: determine, based on a passenger status within a passenger environment of a vehicle, an energy reduction scheme comprising a plurality of different energy configurations for a subsystem of the vehicle, the plurality of different energy configurations comprising a first energy configuration and a second energy configuration, wherein the energy reduction scheme is configured to reduce power consumption of the subsystem with respect to the vehicle, …” (Lee ¶ 216) by determining that a passenger intends to take a rest and then determining various adjustments to make such as adjusting the illumination to be suitable for sleep and turning off the sleep, each of which reduce the overall energy used. Further, Lee discloses “track a state of the passenger status among a set of passenger status states” (Lee ¶ 214) by tracking a passenger status among the set of a “woken up” state, and “drowsy” state, and a “sleep” state. Moreover, Lee discloses “wherein a first transition from the first passenger status state to the second passenger status state requires a first dwell time in the first passenger status state, wherein a second transition from the second passenger status state to the first passenger status state requires a second dwell time that is shorter than the first dwell time” (Lee ¶ 214) where the passenger may transition between a “woken up” state, and “drowsy” state, and a “sleep” state and when transitioning from a sleep state to a drowsy state, the associated dwell time of 400ms is shorter than 800ms. Finally, Lee discloses “control a configuration setting of the subsystem of the vehicle based on the energy reduction scheme according to one of the plurality of different energy configurations that is associated with the state of the passenger status” (Lee ¶ 216) by performing the functions.
Dadam and Lee are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicles capable of detecting sleeping passengers.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dadam and Lee before him or her to modify the controlled subsystems of Dadam to include the separate dwell times of Lee.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Dadam teaches the “base device” for detecting a sleeping passenger in a vehicle using a dwell time. Further, Lee teaches the “known technique” of using separate dwell times for different states that is applicable to the base device of Dadam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 17, it merely recites an apparatus embodying the device of claim 1. The apparatus comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Dadam and Lee comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 17 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, it merely recites a non-transitory computer readable medium for embodiment of claim 1. The medium comprises merely computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Dadam and Lee comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “determine a status of an operational component of the vehicle, wherein the operational component relates to the passenger environment” (Dadam ¶ 66) by detecting “vehicle operating conditions” such as “cabin temperature, passenger cabin noise level, … and ambient lighting amount (e.g., lumens)” using vehicle sensors. Further, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “determine the energy reduction scheme further based on the status of the operational component with respect to the passenger status” (Dadam ¶ 75) where the reduction of lumens is performed based on the determined amount of lumens with respect to the passenger falling asleep.
Regarding claim 3, Dadam discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Dadam discloses “wherein the operational component comprises a window” (Lee ¶ 218) by considering the state of the window of the second zone. Further, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the status of the window, wherein the status comprises a temperature, quality, or quantity of an incoming air stream into the passenger environment” (Lee ¶ 234) where the system determines if the window should be opened, meaning that it is determining whether there is any incoming air stream, which is a quantity. Finally, the combination of Dadam and Lee at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “determine the energy reduction scheme further based on the temperature, quality, or quantity of the incoming air stream with respect to the passenger status” (Lee ¶ 234, Dadam ¶ 79) where Lee discloses that the scheme is determined based on the quantity of the incoming air stream, as discussed above, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when Lee was combined with Dadam, this would have been part of the energy reduction scheme of Dadem, rendering this limitation obvious.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “determine a navigation plan with respect to planned movements of the vehicle; and adjust the energy reduction scheme based on the navigation plan or adjust the navigation plan based on the passenger status” (Dadam ¶ 74) by selecting a navigation route (i.e., navigation plan) based on the road surfaces or shape (i.e., adjusting the navigation plan) in order to facilitate sleep (i.e., based on the passenger status).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 19 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein processor is further configured to determine the passenger status based on sensor information about the passenger environment of the vehicle.” (Dadam ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “the device further comprising a sensor configured to capture the sensor information about the passenger environment” (Dadam ¶ 24) where the sensor is the camera.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the sensor comprises a camera, a LiDAR sensor, a radar, a thermal sensor, an occupancy sensor, or an infrared sensor” (Dadam ¶ 56) by detecting the presences of a passenger in the rear seating area using a camera, which makes the camera an occupancy sensor within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the passenger status within the passenger environment of the vehicle further comprises a location of a passenger within the passenger environment [Dadam ¶ 56], a pose of the passenger, a gaze of the passenger [Dadam ¶ 72], a behavior of the passenger [Dadam¶ 72], a clothing type worn by the passenger, a heart-rate of the passenger, a body temperature of the passenger, an expression of the passenger [Dadam ¶ 72], or a perspiration of the passenger” (Dadam ¶¶ 56, 72) by determining that the passenger is in the rear seating area (i.e., location), whether the passenger’s eyes are drooping (i.e., gaze), and whether the passenger is yawning (i.e., behavior and expression).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the configuration setting comprises a contrast, a brightness level, a backlighting, a resolution, or a frame rate of the display” (Lee ¶ 216) where turning the display off is setting a brightness level to 0.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the subsystem comprises a video playback unit, wherein the configuration setting comprises a playback setting for whether to pause/stop playback on the video playback unit” (Lee ¶ 216) by turning off the display, which is a stop setting within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the subsystem comprises a ventilation system, wherein the configuration setting comprises a fan speed, a temperature, an extent to which a vent should be opened, or a zone to be targeted by the ventilation system” (Dadam ¶ 75) where the ventilation configures comprises at least a temperature.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the processor is further configured to provide the configuration setting to a passenger within the vehicle” (Dadam ¶ 62) by notifying the driver and other passengers of the change. Further, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “to receive from the passenger edits to the configuration setting” (Dadam ¶ 68, Fig. 11) by allowing the user to adjust the settings, which is shown in Fig. 11 to be after the change has occurred.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses “wherein the energy reduction scheme comprises a set of rules for determining the configuration setting in relation to other configuration settings, other subsystems, predetermined energy criterion, a status of an operational component of the vehicle, or a navigation plan with respect to planned movements of the vehicle” (Dadam ¶ 64) by learning settings that correspond to conditions in order to recreate those conditions in the future. These are rules within the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam in view of Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Goldman-Shenhar et al., US Publication 2017/0285641 (hereinafter Goldman-Shenhar), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated May 29, 2026.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the subsystem comprises an in-seat temperature control system, where the configuration setting comprises a temperature.”
However, Goldman-Shenhar discloses an autonomous vehicle capable of detecting context states related to vehicle passengers and then controlling subsystems of the vehicle based on the context, “wherein the subsystem comprises an in-seat temperature control system, where the configuration setting comprises a temperature” (Goldman-Shenhar ¶ 163, see also ¶¶ 159-165) where the contextual mode can result in non-vehicle dynamic settings such as seat temperature to be adjusted.
Dadam, Lee, and Goldman-Shenhar are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous vehicles capable of detecting sleeping passengers.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dadam, Lee, and Goldman-Shenhar before him or her to modify the passenger emotional state detection of Dadam and Lee to include the particular adjustable settings for the temperature of Goldman-Shenhar by incorporating this into the other features that may be adjusted.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional user efficiencies and increased user enjoyment and comfort. (Goldman-Shenhar ¶¶ 197-198).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam in view of Lee, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Kume et al., US Publication 2024/0361132 (hereinafter Kume), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated May 29, 2026.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dadam and Lee discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Dadam and Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize the set of rules based on a predetermined criterion.”
However, Kume discloses an autonomous vehicle capable of detecting sleeping passengers “wherein the processor is further configured to prioritize the set of rules based on a predetermined criterion” (Kume ¶ 96) where the alternate route, which is selected because the passenger is sleeping, may be selected by based on a prioritization of rules, such as distance, arrival time, and autonomous driving operation. Whichever was the chosen priority would be the predetermined criterion.
Dadam, Lee, and Kume are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicles capable of detecting sleeping passengers.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dadam, Lee, and Kume before him or her to modify the navigation system of Dadam and Lee to include the calculation of the delay caused by the sleeping passenger of Kume by incorporating this feature into the navigation system when it selects a route conducive to the passenger’s sleep.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the conveniences of the autonomous driving by reducing driver annoyance. (Kume ¶ 128).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 26, 2026, with respect to the objections to claim 3 and there rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim 3 and there rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed August 26, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 8-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Dadam and Lee.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights