DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2007-283900 A) in view of Hemphill (US 2024/0367513 A1) and Suzuki et al. (JP 2020-042853 A). Inoue teaches a method of preventing drunk driving of a driver who rides in a vehicle, the method comprising: sensing actions of the driver (e.g., whether the driver fastens a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle (paragraphs 0009-0011, 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0037-0044 and 0049-0051), whether the driver's side door and driver's side window are closed (paragraphs 0014 and 0051), and that “the person seated in the driver's seat underwent the alcohol test” (paragraph 0031)); determining whether a sobriety test of the driver is possible based on a sensed result (e.g., whether the driver fastens a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle - paragraphs 0010, 0031-0033, 0037 and 0051); obtaining information on whether the driver is intoxicated when it is determined that the sobriety test of the driver is possible (paragraphs 0010, 0031-0033, 0037 and 0051); and controlling the vehicle based on the information (paragraphs 0001, 0009-0011, 0014, 0017, 0025, 0027, 0035, 0045 and 0052), wherein the sensing of the actions comprises: sensing whether the driver sits in a driver's seat of the vehicle (implicitly sensed via sensing the fastening of the driver’s seat belt, since the driver’s seat belt would only be expected to be fastened when the driver sits in the driver’s seat of the vehicle); sensing whether the driver closes the driver’s side door of the vehicle (paragraphs 0014 and 0051); and sensing whether the driver fastens a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle (paragraphs 0009-0011, 0014-0016, 0031-0033, 0037-0044 and 0049-0051). The determining of whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible comprises determining that the sobriety test of the driver is impossible when one or more of the actions of the driver are not sensed (e.g., when the driver fastening a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle is not sensed (paragraphs 0010, 0031-0033, 0037 and 0051)). The method further comprises: re-sensing the actions of the driver; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible based on the re-sensed actions (paragraphs 0011, 0038 and 0045). The method further comprises: re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible when the driver is intoxicated (e.g., when an intoxicated driver unfastens the seat belt, exits the vehicle, re-enters the vehicle, and fastens the seat belt again, thereby requiring another sobriety test before operation of the vehicle - paragraphs 0011, 0038 and 0045). The method further comprises: when it is sensed that the driver does not fasten the seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle while driving the vehicle, stopping the driving of the vehicle; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible (paragraph 0011). The obtaining of the information comprises: detecting alcohol from exhaled breath from the driver; and obtaining the information on whether the driver is intoxicated based on a detected result (paragraphs 0013 and 0021). An electronic device (e.g., “ECU” – paragraph 0020) is provided for preventing drunk driving of the driver who rides in the vehicle, the electronic device comprising: a processor (e.g., “CPU” – paragraph 0022); and a memory (e.g., “ROM, RAM, etc.” – paragraph 0022) storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to facilitate the method. Inoue does not teach sensing whether the driver closes all doors of the vehicle; sensing whether the driver steps on a brake of the vehicle; and sensing whether the driver grips a steering wheel of the vehicle. Hemphill teaches a method comprising: sensing actions of a driver; wherein the sensing of the actions comprises: sensing whether the driver sits in a driver's seat of the vehicle (paragraph 0009, 0010, 0020, 0028, 0080, 0082, 0088, 0089 and 0095); sensing whether the driver closes all doors of the vehicle (paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0020, 0028, 0080, 0082, 0088 and 0089); sensing whether the driver fastens a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle (paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0020, 0028, 0080, 0082, 0084, 0088 and 0089); and sensing whether the driver grips a steering wheel of the vehicle (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Inoue with sensing for a driver sitting in a driver’s seat, according to the known technique taught by Hemphill, in order to “enable or disable operation and/or drivability of the vehicle based on whether the vehicle operator or driver is properly seated in the seat” (paragraph 0009), to determine “whether the detected weight on the seat matches or closely matches the weight of the vehicle operator or driver so as to verify that only one person is on the seat and/or the proper person is on the seat” (paragraph 0020), to verify that “one, live verified individual is located in the driver side seat” (paragraph 0080), and “to determine if the driver or vehicle operator is in the proper location in the vehicle and is the individual being tested” (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Inoue with sensing of whether the driver closes all doors of the vehicle, according to the known technique taught by Hemphill, in order to prevent the occupants of the vehicle and/or objects in the vehicle from falling out of the vehicle when the vehicle is traveling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Inoue with sensing of whether the driver grips a steering wheel of the vehicle, according to the known technique taught by Hemphill, in order to send safety-related information “to a remote location (e.g., public safety agency, police, hospital, fire department, ambulance service, towing service, parent, guardian, court official, parole officer, vehicle owner, vehicle insurance company, mortgage company or bank or other lender that owns a mortgage or lien on vehicle, vehicle lessee, vehicle lessor, etc.), and/or d) receive information (e.g., passcode, system reset, system unlock codes, system lock codes, instructions to terminate operation of vehicle, instructions to allow operation of vehicle, etc.) from a remote location” (paragraph 0084) to thereby provide for enhanced monitoring of the vehicle and promote safe operation of the vehicle. Neither Inoue nor Hemphill explicitly teaches sensing whether the driver steps on a brake of the vehicle. Suzuki teaches a method comprising: sensing actions of a driver; wherein the sensing of the actions comprises: sensing whether the driver steps on a brake of the vehicle (paragraphs 0013, 0014, 0021, 0025 and 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Inoue with sensing of whether the driver steps on a brake of a vehicle, according to the known technique taught by Suzuki, to facilitate braking of the vehicle in a manual driving mode (paragraphs 0013, 0014, 0021, 0025 and 0026) and to facilitate the operation of brake lights to alert others when the vehicle is braking (paragraph 0029). Such a combination would naturally also further comprise: when it is sensed that the driver does not sit in the driver's seat of the vehicle while driving the vehicle, stopping the driving of the vehicle; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible, since situations in which it is possible that “the person sitting in the driver’s seat has changed” (paragraph 0011 of Inoue; see also paragraphs 0012, 0038, 0045 and 0046 of Inoue) would naturally involve stopping the driving of the vehicle; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible, the sensing that the driver does not sit in the driver’s seat of the vehicle being indicative of such a situation. Such a combination would naturally also further comprise: when it is sensed that not all the doors of the vehicle are closed while driving the vehicle, stopping the driving of the vehicle; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible, since situations in which it is possible that “the person sitting in the driver’s seat has changed” (paragraph 0011 of Inoue; see also paragraphs 0012, 0038, 0045 and 0046 of Inoue) would naturally involve stopping the driving of the vehicle; and re-determining whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible, the sensing that not all the doors of the vehicle are closed while driving the vehicle being indicative of such a situation. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2007-283900 A) in view of Hemphill (US 2024/0367513 A1) and Suzuki et al. (JP 2020-042853 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Breed et al. (US 2003/0209893 A1). Breed teaches wherein the sensing of whether a driver fastens a seat belt in a driver's seat of a vehicle comprises sensing whether a length of the seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle is changed by a predetermined length or more (e.g., via a “seatbelt payout sensor” (paragraph 1666) / “seatbelt spool out sensor” (paragraph 1488); see also paragraphs 1487-1489). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Inoue with sensing of whether a driver fastens a seat belt in a driver's seat of a vehicle comprising sensing whether a length of the seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle is changed by a predetermined length or more via a seat belt payout sensor / seatbelt spool out sensor, according to the known technique taught by Breed, in order “to determine the likely location of the driver relative to the airbag” (paragraph 1487) to thereby additionally “make a decision as to whether to prevent deployment of the airbag in a situation where it would otherwise be deployed, or otherwise affect the time of deployment” (paragraph 1487; see also paragraphs 1488 and 1489). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (JP 2007-283900 A) in view of Hemphill (US 2024/0367513 A1) and Suzuki et al. (JP 2020-042853 A) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Koehn (US 2009/0325639 A1). Koehn teaches a method wherein information on whether a driver is intoxicated is obtained based on an output signal of a gas sensor array comprising a plurality of gas sensors (paragraphs 0008 and 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an invention as taught by Inoue with information on whether a driver is intoxicated that is obtained based on an output signal of a gas sensor array comprising a plurality of gas sensors, according to the known technique taught by Koehn, “to more accurately measure alcohol in the users breath” (paragraph 0021). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument(s) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “an alcohol-impaired-driving prevention system that permits alcohol measurement after confirming that a driver has performed required actions i.e., sitting in the driver's seat, closing the door, fastening the seatbelt, depressing the brake pedal, and grasping the steering wheel” – see the paragraph spanning pages 9 and 10 of the remarks; “the feature of Applicant's claim 1 requiring the driver's two hands and two feet to be positioned at predetermined locations (i.e., the steering wheel and brake pedal) in order to physically prevent a passenger inside the vehicle from providing a vicarious breath sample on behalf of the driver” – see the paragraph spanning pages 10 and 11 of the remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, the invention recited in claims 1 and 11 does not require that a determination that a sobriety test of a driver is impossible is based on all of the recited sensed actions not being sensed. Rather, the invention recited in claims 1 and 11 determines that a sobriety test of a driver is impossible “when one or more of the actions of the driver are not sensed.” In Inoue, the determining of whether the sobriety test of the driver is possible comprises determining that the sobriety test of the driver is impossible when one or more of the actions of the driver are not sensed (e.g., when the driver fastening a seat belt in the driver's seat of the vehicle is not sensed (paragraphs 0010, 0031-0033, 0037 and 0051)).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the combination of Inoue, Hemphill and Suzuki would not be obvious because the sensors in Hemphill and Suzuki “serve purposes fundamentally different from alcohol measurement” (see the paragraph beginning with “In addition” on page 13 of the remarks), claims 1 and 11 do not require a brake sensor and/or a steering wheel sensor to be used by an alcohol measurement system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
