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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 14-16, and 18 are 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 the limitation "the cause" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 15 recite “the presence of tears in an eye of the driver”. It is not clear if this is the same eye monitored in claim 13, or if it is a different eye of the driver. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as if it is the same eye.
Claims 16 and 18 recite “a state of the pupil opening of the driver, a blink frequency o the driver, a gaze direction of the driver, a glare protection gesture of the driver, and/or a presence of tears in an eye of the driver”. It is not clear if these refer to the corresponding recitation of claim 13, or if they are in reference to different quantities. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as if they refer to the corresponding recitation of claim 13.
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, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stent (US 20210300428).
Claim 1.
Stent teaches:
an interface circuit, machine-readable instructions, and a processing circuit for executing the machine-readable instructions
(Stent – [0005]) “a processor coupled to receive captured images from the image sensor; and a non-transitory memory coupled to the processor to store instructions”
determine a glare intensity of the glare of the driver of the vehicle
(Stent – Abstract) “determining a level of dazzling of a driver of the vehicle based on the determined at least one of a driver characteristic and a light source characteristic”
if the glare intensity exceeds a threshold, activate an in-vehicle safety function to increase driving safety in the presence of glare
(Stent – Abstract) “switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode and engaging an ADAS feature if it is detected that the determine level of dazzling is above a dazzling threshold.”
Claim 13.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
determining the glare intensity is based on a state of the pupil opening of the driver, a blink frequency of the driver, a gaze direction of the driver, a glare protection gesture of the driver, a presence of tears in an eye of the driver and/or information about the surroundings of the vehicle
(Stent – [0023]) “Embodiments may be implemented to evaluate various driver characteristics upon the detection of a potential dazzle event. These characteristics may include, for example, the direction of the driver’s gaze and the amount of pupil contraction experienced by the driver at the time of the potential dazzle event.”
Claim 14.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
determining the glare intensity is based on a weighted combination of the state of the pupil opening of the driver, the blink frequency of the driver, the gaze direction of the driver, the glare protection gesture of the driver, the presence of tears in an eye of the driver and/or information about the surroundings of the vehicle
(Stent – [0012]) “Determining a level of dazzling may include calculating a weighted combination of at least two of a plurality of driver characteristics and light source characteristics.”
(Stent – [0023]) “Embodiments may be implemented to evaluate various driver characteristics upon the detection of a potential dazzle event. These characteristics may include, for example, the direction of the driver’s gaze and the amount of pupil contraction experienced by the driver at the time of the potential dazzle event.”
Claim 16.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
determine a state of the pupil opening of the driver, a blink frequency of the driver, a gaze direction of the driver, a glare protection gesture of the driver and/or a presence of tears in an eye of the driver based on data of at least one sensor inside the vehicle directed at the driver
(Stent – [0023]) “Embodiments may be implemented to evaluate various driver characteristics upon the detection of a potential dazzle event. These characteristics may include, for example, the direction of the driver’s gaze and the amount of pupil contraction experienced by the driver at the time of the potential dazzle event.”
(Stent – [0029]) “Image sensors 113 can include one or more cameras or other image sensors to capture images of the environment around the vehicle as well as internal to the vehicle.”
Claim 17.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
determine information about the surroundings of the vehicle based on at least one environmental sensor of the vehicle
(Stent – Abstract) “using a plurality of sensors to gather data regarding driver characteristics and light source characteristics in an environment of the subject vehicle”
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costa et al. (US 20210094394).
Claim 2.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
activating a driver assistance system or autonomous driving system
(Stent – Abstract) “switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode and engaging an ADAS feature if it is detected that the determine level of dazzling is above a dazzling threshold.”
wherein the driver assistance system or autonomous driving system controls at least one function of the vehicle
(Stent – Abstract) “switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode and engaging an ADAS feature if it is detected that the determine level of dazzling is above a dazzling threshold.”
Stent does not explicitly teach a time period; however, Costa et al. teaches:
a first time period
(Costa – Abstract) “Determining the solar position can include determining a sun glare period during a future time period based at least in part on the trip information associated with the vehicle. The vehicle computing system may display a warning indicative of the sun glare period”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the dazzle mitigation system of Stent with the sun tracking system of Costa et al. Both Stent and Costa et al. are directed towards mitigation of the negative impacts of glare on a driver of a vehicle; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to determine future glare periods during a trip, rather than merely when parked (Costa – [0003]).
Claim 3.
The combination of Stent and Costa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
activating an adaptive cruise control of a lane keeping assistant and/or an emergency braking assistant
(Stent – Abstract) “switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode and engaging an ADAS feature if it is detected that the determine level of dazzling is above a dazzling threshold.”
(Stent – [0039]) “AV control systems 130 include steering system 121, throttle system 122, brakes 123… These vehicle systems 140 may be controlled by AV control systems 130 in autonomous, semi-autonomous or manual mode”
Claim 4.
The combination of Stent and Costa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
block control commands of the driver with respect to the at least one function of the vehicle during activating the driver assistance system or autonomous driving system for the duration of the first time period
(Stent – [0007]) “Switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode may include switching the vehicle to a fully autonomous mode”
[Examiner’s Note: In a fully autonomous mode, the vehicle operates solely based on automatic control, without any input from the driver. Therefore, the driver’s control commands have no effect in such a mode.]
Claim 5.
The combination of Stent and Costa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Stent further teaches:
the driver assistance system comprises a driver assistance system emergency control system or the autonomous driving system comprises an autonomous driving emergency control system
(Stent – Abstract) “switching a control of the vehicle from a manual drive mode to an autonomous drive mode and engaging an ADAS feature if it is detected that the determine level of dazzling is above a dazzling threshold.”
Claim 6.
The combination of Stent and Costa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Costa et al. further teaches:
determine the first time period based on the glare intensity, a previous glare load of the driver, a predicted duration of the glare of the driver and/or a glare recovery duration of the driver
(Costa – Abstract) “Determining the solar position can include determining a sun glare period during a future time period based at least in part on the trip information associated with the vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim 7.
The combination of Stent and Costa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Costa et al. further teaches:
determine the predicted duration of the glare of the driver based on a cause of the glare of the driver
(Costa – Abstract) “Determining the solar position can include determining a sun glare period during a future time period based at least in part on the trip information associated with the vehicle.”
[Examiner’s Note: The solar position here corresponds to the cause of the glare of the driver.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gocke et al. (DE 102019117899).
Claim 8.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Stent does not explicitly teach determining a cause of the glare; however, Gocke et al. teaches:
determine the cause of the glare of the driver
(Gocke – [0001]) “a first detector system for detecting dazzling objects in an exterior lighting area of the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the dazzle mitigation system of Stent with the automatically dimmed headlights of Gocke et al. Both Stent and Gocke et al. are directed towards minimizing the negative impact of glare on a driver; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the possibility of reducing glare from reflected headlights (Gocke – [0003]).
Claim 9.
The combination of Stent and Gocke et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Gocke et al. further teaches:
determining the cause of the glare of the driver is based on data of at least one environmental sensor of the vehicle
(Gocke – [0001]) “a first detector system for detecting dazzling objects in an exterior lighting area of the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 8.
Claim 10.
The combination of Stent and Gocke et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Gocke et al. further teaches:
determining the cause of the glare of the driver is based on data of at least one vehicle assistance system sensor
(Gocke – [0001]) “a first detector system for detecting dazzling objects in an exterior lighting area of the vehicle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 8.
Claim 11.
The combination of Stent and Gocke et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Gocke et al. further teaches:
adjusting a light intensity in a part of a light emission range of a headlight of the vehicle if a self-glare by the vehicle has been determined as the cause of the glare of the driver
(Gocke – [0005]) “a control device for reducing the luminous flux emitted by at least one headlight of the vehicle onto a dazzling object based on a detected glare”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 8.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams et al. (US 20200108699).
Claim 12.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Stent teaches communication with other vehicles (Stent – [0043]), Stent does not explicitly teach informing a second vehicle about glare. However, Adams et al. teaches:
inform a second vehicle about the determined glare intensity
(Adams – [0047]) “assuming the remote server has identified the first and second vehicle and all applicable conditions are met, then it generates a warning signal to at least one of the vehicles.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the dazzle mitigation system of Stent with the warning signal of Adams et al. Both Stent and Adams et al. are directed towards mitigating the negative impacts of glare on a driver; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings could be combined in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because reliance on a driver’s senses may result in a delayed reaction to headlight glare (Adams – [0002]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 20190377970).
Claim 15.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. While Stent teaches use of a neural network to determine optimal weighting, Stent does not explicitly teach determining glare intensity using machine learning. However, Huber et al. teaches:
determining the glare intensity is based on a machine learning algorithm and the state of the pupil opening of the driver, the blink frequency of the driver, the gaze direction of the driver, the glare protection gesture of the driver, the presence of tears in an eye of the driver and/or information about the surroundings of the vehicle
(Huber – [0048]) “employing machine learning to train an algorithm according to training data to determine what constitutes glare and no glare regions in an image.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the dazzle mitigation system of Stent with the machine learning-based glare detection system of Huber et al. Both Stent and Huber et al. are directed towards the detection of glare; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be combined in this fashion with predictable results, namely that the glare detection of Stent is performed by a machine learning model.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stent as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Badrinarayanan et al. (US 20210182554).
Claim 18.
Stent teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Stent does not explicitly teach determining an eye state based on machine learning; however, Badrinarayanan et al. teaches:
determine a state of the pupil opening of the driver, a blink frequency of the driver, a gaze direction of the driver, a glare protection gesture of the driver, a presence of tears in an eye of the driver and/or to determine information about the surroundings of the vehicle based on a machine learning algorithm
(Badrinarayanan – Abstract) “estimating a gaze vector of an eye using a trained neural network”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the driver characteristic detection system of Stent with the neural network-based detection system of Badrinarayanan et al. Both Stent and Badrinarayanan et al. are directed towards detection of a driver’s eye movement; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be combined with predictable results, namely that the gaze detection of Stent is performed by a neural network model.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights