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 1-6 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
Claim recites the limitation “the biological" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as “the biological data”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claim 1 is directed to a vehicle controller (i.e. machine). Thus, claim 1 is one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle controller comprising a processor configured to
acquire biological data of a user of a vehicle from a sensor provided in the vehicle;
determine a consciousness level of the user based on the biological by conducting a kinesiology test; and
control an interface mounted on the vehicle in accordance with the determined consciousness level to change an in-vehicle environment.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at and using the data collected to formulating a judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle controller comprising a processor configured to
acquire biological data of a user of a vehicle from a sensor provided in the vehicle;
determine a consciousness level of the user based on the biological by conducting a kinesiology test; and
control an interface mounted on the vehicle in accordance with the determined consciousness level to change an in-vehicle environment.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire…”, and “control…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the acquire step can be performed via sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering the user’s information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The control step of the interface is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of changes of the display, sound (such as music) or environment within the vehicle result from the determine step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical filed, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor to perform the determine… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in a vehicle system. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire…”, and “control…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-6 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2008/0119994 A1 to Kameyama (Kameyama) in view of Pub No. US 2009/0066521 A1 to Atlas et. al. (Atlas).
In Reference to Claim 1
Kameyama teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A vehicle controller (100) comprising a processor (100) (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0056] “Embodiments of the present invention is explained in detail below in reference to the appended drawings. FIG. 1 is a conceptual block diagram of a vehicular user hospitality system (hereinafter also called just a "system") 100, showing one embodiment of the present invention. The system 100 comprises a vehicle-mounted portion 100 as its main portion. The vehicle-mounted portion 100 comprises a hospitality control section 3 including a first computer connected to various hospitality operation portions 502 to 517, 534, 541, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, and 1001B, and a hospitality determination section 2 including a second computer connected to various sensors and cameras 518 to 528. The first and second computers have CPUs, ROMs, and RAMs, and execute control software stored in the ROMs by use of the RAMs as working memory to achieve after-mentioned various functions”) configured to
acquire biological data of a user of a vehicle from a sensor (523) provided in the vehicle (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs [0081] “A pressure sensor 523 is mounted to a position grasped by the user, such as a steering wheel or shift lever, and detects a grip of the user and a repeating frequency of the gripping and releasing (user biological characteristic information obtaining means”);
determine a consciousness level of the user based on the biological by conducting a kinesiology test (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18 and 30 and paragraphs [0010], [0447] and [0469] “(iii) a user biological characteristic information obtaining means for obtaining at least one of a physical condition and a mental condition of the user”, “Next, when the user is driving, the mental and physical condition further needs to be considered, in addition to the character. When a user (driver) is seated on the driver's seat, more sensors and cameras can be used as the user biological characteristic information obtaining means for obtaining the biological condition parameters. Specifically, the infrared sensor 519, seating sensor 520, face camera 521, microphone 522, pressure sensor 523, blood pressure 524, body temperature sensor 525, iris camera 527, and skin resistance sensor 545 of FIG. 1 can be used. The user biological characteristic information obtaining means can grasp vital reaction of the user who is driving, variously. The hospitality determination section 2 estimates mental and physical conditions of the user from the time change information of the biological condition parameters detected by the user biological characteristic information obtaining means, and executes the hospitality operation matching the condition, as described in detail in the embodiment of the approach scene” and “As shown in FIG. 30, by detecting the increase of the steering error, the driver can be estimated to be in the distraction or excitation. On the other hand, in case of the serious physical condition (including drowsiness), normal steering is prevented. Accordingly, from a tendency of the increase of the error, the condition can be estimated. On the other hand, the response to the steering tends to be delayed in case of the poor physical condition or distraction. From the decrease of the steering speed, the poor physical condition or distraction can be estimated. In the excitation the driver tends to turn the steering wheel from impatience. Accordingly, from the increase of the steering speed, the excitation can be estimated”); and
control an interface mounted on the vehicle in accordance with the determined consciousness level to change an in-vehicle environment (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18 and 30 and paragraphs [0498], [0513] and [0525], “Next, in the vehicular user hospitality system, a user condition calculating means for calculating a user condition index reflecting at least a physical condition of the user as a value in accordance with obtained user biological characteristic information can be provided. In this case, the standard reference information can be provided as a standard reference index reflecting a user condition, the index being a standard for controlling the corresponding function. The operation content determining means can include a value instruction information calculating means for calculating function operation instruction information as value instruction information relating to at least a physical condition of the user shown by the user biological characteristic information by compensating the standard reference index by the user condition index. Accordingly, the hospitality determination section can control the (selected) function at an appropriate operation level based on the user condition”, “When the function is a car audio system, the operation content determining means can select music matching the mental condition of the user in accordance with the mental condition reflected by the obtained user biological characteristic information, and determine an operation output content of the car audio system to adjust the output volume in accordance with a value of the user condition index. Accordingly, the proper music selection can be done in accordance with the mental condition, and the user can enjoy the selected music at a sound volume suitable for the physical condition. In the music selection, as well as the mental condition, the physical condition can be considered” and “The specified conditions can include at least "distraction," "poor physical condition," and "excitation." When the mental/physical condition estimating means estimates that the user (driver) has been distracted, the hospitality control section can make the hospitality operation portion awake the user. Accordingly, the user can concentrate on driving. When the mental/physical condition estimation means estimates that the user is in poor physical condition, the hospitality control section can control the corresponding hospitality operation portion to ease the disturbance influence on the user. Due to the reduction of the disturbance influence, the increase of physical fatigue caused by psychological burden can be restricted, so that the pain of the driver can be decreased. When the mental/physical condition estimating means estimates that the user has been excited, the hospitality control section can make the hospitality operation portion execute an operation for easing mental tension of the user. Accordingly, the excited mental condition of the driver can be calmed, so that cool, mild driving can be achieved”).
Kameyama teaches to determine the physical state (consciousness level) based on grip pressure however Kameyama does not explicitly (bolded and italic recitations above) as to performing the kinesiology test to determine the consciousness level such as drowsiness, sleepiness or wakefulness. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to performing the kinesiology test to determine the consciousness level such as drowsiness, sleepiness or wakefulness. For example, Atlas teaches to performing the kinesiology test (Psychomotor Vigilance Test). Atlas further implicitly teaches that performing such step provides to accurate determination of the consciousness level such as drowsiness, sleepiness or wakefulness (see at least Atlas Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 31-32, 55, 65, 71, 78-80, 87 and 90). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kameyama to perform the kinesiology test as taught by Atlas in order to accurately determination of the consciousness level such as drowsiness, sleepiness or wakefulness.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Atlas and further in view of Pub No. US 2025/0206293 A1 to Ishikawa et. al. (Ishikawa).
In Reference to Claim 2
Kameyama in view of Atlas teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle controller according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein
the determining the conscious level includes
outputting a predetermined voice (vibration) during measurement of the biological data by the sensor, and
determining the consciousness level from the biological data measured after the output of the predetermined voice (vibration) (see at least Atlas Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 31-32, 55, 65, 71, 78-80, 87 and 90).
Kameyama in view of Atlas teaches that the operator is previously instructed that when the vibratory stimulus is felt, to immediately grip the handgrip as strongly as possible however is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to outputting a predetermined voice (vibration) during measurement of the biological data by the sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the driving assistance of vehicles performs the instructions which can be vibration or voice output. For example, Ishikawa teaches that the driving assistance of vehicles performs the instructions which can be vibration or voice output (see at least Ishikawa Figs. 1-5 and paragraph 6). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by Ishikawa to the vehicle system of Kameyama in view of Atlas would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would instruct the user of the gripping of the steering wheel in Kameyama in view of Atlas to determine the consciousness level of the user.
In Reference to Claim 3
The vehicle controller according to claim 2 (see rejection to claim 2 above), wherein
the determining the conscious level includes
outputting a first voice that satisfies a predetermined consciousness level, and a second voice that does not satisfy the predetermined consciousness level during the measurement of the biological data by the sensor (Also Kameyama in view of Atlas and further in view of Ishikawa as stated above would modify the first and second vibrations to first and second voice instructions and since Atlas teaches that grip pressure has to be above the threshold to pass the test and being below the threshold would not pass the test therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first voice and second voice would be to instruct the user that the first voice would state what would satisfies a predetermined consciousness level and a second voice that does not satisfy the predetermined consciousness level during the measurement of the biological data by the sensor in order to clearly instruct the user how to pass the test and further since there are limited choices such as telling the user how to pass or how not to pass or just telling the user that the test is being performed), comparing a value of a first biological data measured after the output of the first voice with a value of a second biological data measured after the output of the second voice, and determining that the conscious level corresponds to the predetermined consciousness level when the value of a first biological data is greater than the value of the second biological data (see at least Atlas paragraph [0009] “A control unit establishes a lower threshold limit and sounds an alarm if a pressure transient indicates a substantial and sudden deterioration”) (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18 and 30 and paragraphs 81, 447, 469, 498, 513 and 525) (see at least Atlas Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 31-32, 55, 65, 71, 78-80, 87 and 90).
In Reference to Claim 4
The vehicle controller according to claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein
the changing the in-vehicle environment includes
changing the in-vehicle environment by controlling the interface, measuring the biological data after the change of the in-vehicle environment, maintaining the changed in-vehicle environment when the value of the measured biological data is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value, and repeating, when the value of the measured biological data is less than a predetermined threshold value, changing to another in-vehicle environment and measuring the biological data until when the value of the measured biological data is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18, 29-30 and 32 and paragraphs 81, 383, 447-469, 498, 513 and 525)
In Reference to Claim 5
Kameyama in view of Atlas teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle controller according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein
the determining the conscious level includes
outputting a first voice (vibration) that satisfies a predetermined consciousness level, and a second voice (vibration) that does not satisfy the predetermined consciousness level during the measurement of the biological data by the sensor, and comparing a value of a first biological data measured after the output of the first voice (vibration)with a value of a second biological data measured after the output of the second voice (vibration), and the changing the in-vehicle environment includes changing to in-vehicle environment which was applied to another user having a similar attribute to the user by controlling the interface when the value of the first biological data is less than or equal to the value of the second biological data (see at least Atlas paragraph [0009] “A control unit establishes a lower threshold limit and sounds an alarm if a pressure transient indicates a substantial and sudden deterioration”) (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18, 29-30 and 32 and paragraphs 81, 383, 447-469, 498, 513 and 525) (see at least Atlas Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 31-32, 55, 65, 71, 78-80, 87 and 90).
Kameyama in view of Atlas teaches that the operator is previously instructed that when the vibratory stimulus is felt, to immediately grip the handgrip as strongly as possible however is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to outputting a predetermined voice (vibration) during measurement of the biological data by the sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the driving assistance of vehicles performs the instructions which can be vibration or voice output. For example, Ishikawa teaches that the driving assistance of vehicles performs the instructions which can be vibration or voice output (see at least Ishikawa Figs. 1-5 and paragraph 6). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by Ishikawa to the vehicle system of Kameyama in view of Atlas would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would instruct the user of the gripping of the steering wheel in Kameyama in view of Atlas to determine the consciousness level of the user.
Also Kameyama in view of Atlas and further in view of Ishikawa as stated above would modify the first and second vibrations to first and second voice instructions and since Atlas teaches that grip pressure has to be above the threshold to pass the test and being below the threshold would not pass the test therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first voice and second voice would be to instruct the user that the first voice would state what would satisfies a predetermined consciousness level and a second voice that does not satisfy the predetermined consciousness level during the measurement of the biological data by the sensor in order to clearly instruct the user how to pass the test and further since there are limited choices such as telling the user how to pass or how not to pass or just telling the user that the test is being performed
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameyama in view of Atlas and further in view of Pub No. US 2018/0326990 A1 to Kusaka et. al. (Kusaka).
In Reference to Claim 6
Kameyama in view of Atlas teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle controller according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the changing the in-vehicle environment includes maintaining the changed in-vehicle environment when the changed in-vehicle environment is accepted by the user (Kameyama teaches that the user can change the music anytime) (see at least Kameyama Figs. 1-2, 6, 17-18, 29-30 and 32 and paragraphs 81, 383, 447-469, 498, 513 and 525).
However Kameyama in view of Atlas does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) about maintaining the changed in-vehicle environment when the changed in-vehicle environment is accepted by the user. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintaining the change to the vehicle system when the user accepts the changes. For example, Kusaka teaches to maintaining the change to the vehicle system when the user accepts the changes. Kusaka further teaches that performing such step prevents the user of feeling of unnaturalness while staying aware of drive assist (see at least Kusaka Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 51-54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kameyama in view of Atlas to perform the step of maintaining the changed in-vehicle environment when the changed in-vehicle environment is accepted by the user as taught by Kusaka in order to prevent the user of feeling of unnaturalness while staying aware of drive assist.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 4,540,979 to Gerger et. al. (Gerger) teaches grip responsive operator alertness monitor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights