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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment of 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 3, 14, 16-17, and 39-55 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15, and 18-38 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 17, 42, 50, and 54 objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 3 lines 13-14 “of,” should be omitted.
At claim 17 line 3 “vital signs” should read --the vital signs--.
At claim 42 line 3 “status” should read --a status--.
At claim 50 line 2 “status” should read --a status--.
At claim 54 line 2 “at least one of the vehicle cabin” should read --at least one of the occupants of the vehicle cabin--.
At claim 54 line 2 “vital signs” should read --the vital signs--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis - 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 3, 14, 16-17, and 39-55 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 as detailed in the following analysis.
Claim 3 recites a vehicle cabin monitoring system (judicial exceptions in bold and additional elements underlined):
a radar unit comprising:
at least one transmitter antenna connected to an oscillator and configured to transmit electromagnetic waves into the vehicle cabin, and
at least one receiver antenna configured to receive electromagnetic waves reflected by objects within the vehicle cabin and operable to generate raw data;
a processor unit configured to receive raw data from the radar unit and operable to generate image data based upon the received data;
a memory unit configured and operable to store the image data; and
(b) wherein the processor unit is configured and operable to
generate at least one 3D (three dimensional) images based on said received data responses,
process one or more consecutive 3D images of said obtained 3D images, by removing a background from 3D images,
filter the 3D images by removing contribution of at least one of sidelobes, multipath, thermal noise and clutter,
detect from the 3D images occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin,
detect from the 3D images a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin, and
determine a seatbelt status for at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin.
The analysis of claim 3 continues as:
Step 2A prong 1: The claim recites:
The mental processes of limitations (e), (g), (h), and (i).
Step 2A prong 2: The claim recites:
The additional elements of limitations (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f).
The additional elements in combination provide a particular technological solution to the technical problem of detecting the posture of vehicle occupants and therefore limit the use of the recited mental processes to the particular technological solution of the claim. As such the claim as a whole uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Claim 45 is eligible at step 2A prong 2 for the same reasons provided for claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
Dependent claims 14, 16-17, 39-44, and 46-54 are eligible at step 2A prong 2 by virtue of their use being limited to the practical application recited in the independent claims.
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 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.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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 3, 14, 16-17, and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNISHI (JP 2008-049718) in view of SHEEN (US 11,715,228), LONGSTAFF (US 10,088,564), and BREED (US 9,102,220).
Regarding claim 3, KUNISHI discloses a vehicle cabin monitoring system comprising:
a radar unit (20, “radar sensor” pg. 3 lines 31-32) comprising:
at least one transmitter antenna (implied/inherent in “radar sensor) connected to an oscillator (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) and configured to transmit electromagnetic waves (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) into a vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32), and
at least one receiver antenna (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) configured to receive electromagnetic waves reflected by objects (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) within the vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32) and operable to generate raw data (pg. 3 lines 33-34);
a processor unit (CPU of ECU 30, pg. 3 line 40) configured to receive raw data from the radar unit (pg. 3 lines 33-34) and operable to generate image data based upon the received data (coordinates in the interior space may be considered a 3D image, pg. 3 lines 34-35);
a memory unit (pg. 3 line 39) configured and operable to store the image data (at least in RAM is implied/inherent); and
wherein the processor unit is configured and operable to
generate 3D images based on said received data responses (implied if coordinates in the interior space are obtained, pg. 3 lines 34-35),
detect from the 3D images occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin (implied/inherent in posture detection as no posture can be detected if seat is unoccupied), and
detect from the 3D images a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (pg. 3 lines 31-37).
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach processing the 3D images as claimed.
LONGSTAFF teaches to process one or more 3D images by removing a background from 3D images (col. 7 lines 1-4) to allow a clutter free image of a person (col. 7 line 5).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process one or more consecutive 3D images of KUNISHI by removing a background as taught by LONGSTAFF to allow a clutter free image of a person. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed that processing consecutive 3D images is critical to practice of Applicant’s invention nor that the processing of consecutive 3D images provides a new or unexpected result.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach filtering the 3D images.
SHEEN teaches filtering 3D images by removing contribution of sidelobes (e.g., col. 16 lines 36-40; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention filters the images, c.f. Applicant’s pg. 27 under Decomposition (SVD) heading) to reduce side lobes (col. 14 line 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter the processed 3D images of KUNISHI and LONGSTAFF as taught by SHEEN to reduce side lobes. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed that filtering for side lobes is critical to practice of Applicant’s invention nor that the filtering for side lobes provides a new or unexpected result.
KUNISHI as modified teaches detecting from the filtered 3D images occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin, and detecting from the filtered 3D images a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach determining a seatbelt status as claimed.
BREED teaches a processor unit (processor means, i.a. col. 152 line 10) configured and operable to determine a seatbelt status for at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (i.a. col. 130 lines 43-44) so that airbag deployment parameters can be controlled or adjusted based on the knowledge of seatbelt use (col. 130 lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to determine a seatbelt status for at least one occupant as taught by BREED so that airbag deployment parameters can be controlled or adjusted based on the knowledge of seatbelt use.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 14, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 39.
BREED is relied upon to teach determining if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture as claimed.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is configured and operable to cancel air bag operation if the at least one occupant is in an out-of-position posture (col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to cancel air bag operation if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture as taught by BREED to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 16, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is further configured to generate an alert if an infant is left in the vehicle cabin (col. 141 line 63 - col. 142 line 2) to prevent risk to the child’s health (col. 141 lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to generate an alert if an infant is left in the vehicle cabin as taught by BREED to prevent risk to the child’s health.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 17, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 44.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is configured and operable to trigger a communication system to contact emergency services and to indicate vital signs to emergency personnel (col. 92 lines 10-15 and 28-32) so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site (col. 92 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to trigger a communication system to contact emergency services and to indicate vital signs to emergency personnel as taught by BREED so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 39, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is further configured and operable to determine if the posture of the at least one occupant is an out-of-position posture (abnormally seated passenger, i.a. col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3, col. 153 lines 36-37, col. 157 lines 27-32) to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself (col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to determine if the occupant is out-of-position as taught by BREED to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 40, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 39.
BREED is relied upon to teach determining if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture.
BREED further teaches wherein the out-of-position posture comprises leaning sideways (col. 157 lines 27-30) when an airbag module is situated in a door (col. 157 lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to determine if the occupant is leaning sideways as taught by BREED to prevent injuring the occupant leaning against the airbag module situated in the door.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 41, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is further configured and operable to categorize at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (col. 153 lines 33-37) so that an occupant restraint device or system may be affected based on the obtained identification and position of at least one of the objects (col. 155 lines 5-6 and 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to categorize at least one occupant as taught by BREED so that an occupant restraint device or system may be affected based on the categorization.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 42, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI further discloses wherein the processor unit is further configured and operable to use radar generated data (radar sensor, pg. 3 line 32) to determine status of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (e.g., posture, pg. 3 lines 32-36).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 43, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI further discloses wherein the processor unit is further configured and operable to execute responses according to status of occupants of the vehicle cabin (pg. 7 lines 35-39).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 44, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 39.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches wherein the processor unit is further configured and operable to monitor vital signs of at least one occupant of the vehicle cabin (col. 92 lines 10-15 and 28-32) so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site (col. 92 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor unit of KUNISHI to monitor vital signs as taught by BREED so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Claims 45 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNISHI (JP 2008-049718) in view of SHEEN (US 11,715,228).
Regarding claim 45, KUNISHI discloses a method for monitoring a vehicle cabin:
providing a radar unit (20, “radar sensor” pg. 3 lines 31-32) comprising:
at least one transmitter antenna (implied/inherent in “radar sensor) connected to an oscillator (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) and configured to transmit electromagnetic waves (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) into the vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32), and
at least one receiver antenna (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) configured to receive electromagnetic waves reflected by objects (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) within the vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32) and operable to generate raw data (pg. 3 lines 33-34);
providing a processor unit (CPU of ECU 30, pg. 3 line 40) configured to receive raw data from the radar unit (pg. 3 lines 33-34) and operable to generate image data based upon the received data (coordinates in the interior space may be considered a 3D image, pg. 3 lines 34-35);
providing a memory unit (pg. 3 line 39) configured and operable to store the image data (at least in RAM is implied/inherent); and
transmitting electromagnetic waves (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) into the vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32);
receiving electromagnetic waves reflected by objects (implied/inherent in “radar sensor”) within the vehicle cabin (implied if radar sensor is an occupant posture detection device, pg. 3 lines 31-32);
generating 3D images based on said received data responses (implied if coordinates in the interior space are obtained, pg. 3 lines 34-35),
detecting from the 3D images occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin (implied/inherent in posture detection as no posture can be detected if seat is unoccupied), and
detecting from the 3D images a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (pg. 3 lines 31-37).
SHEEN teaches generating a set of complex values associated with voxels within the vehicle cabin (i.a. col. 13 lines 63-65) with data from a radar unit (140);
converting the set of complex values into a 3D complex image (i.a. col. 16 lines 8-9);
filtering the 3D complex images by removing contribution of sidelobes to produce filtered 3D images (e.g., col. 16 lines 36 40; inasmuch as Applicant’s disclosed invention filters the images, c.f. Applicant’s pg. 27 under Decomposition (SVD) heading) to provide a system which enable imaging of targets with complex target motion (col. 1 lines 52-54) and to reduce side lobes (col. 14 line 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process the raw data of KUNISHI as taught by SHEEN to provide a system which enable imaging of targets with complex target motion and to reduce the influence of side lobes.
KUNISHI as modified teaches detecting from the filtered 3D images occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin; and detecting from the filtered 3D images a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin.
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Regarding claim 50, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 45.
KUNISHI further discloses using radar generated data (radar sensor, pg. 3 line 32) to determine status of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (e.g., posture, pg. 3 lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 51, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 45.
KUNISHI further comprising executing responses according to status of occupants of the vehicle cabin (pg. 7 lines 35-39).
Claims 46-49 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNISHI (JP 2008-049718) in view of SHEEN (US 11,715,228) and BREED (US 9,102,220).
Regarding claim 46, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 45.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED teaches determining if the posture of the at least one occupant is an out-of-position posture (abnormally seated passenger, i.a. col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3, col. 153 lines 36-37, col. 157 lines 27-32) to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself (col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to determine if the occupant is out-of-position as taught by BREED to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself.
Regarding claim 47, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 46.
BREED is relied upon to teach determining if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture as claimed.
BREED further teaches cancelling air bag operation if the at least one occupant is in an out-of-position posture (col. 123 line 66 - col. 124 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to cancel air bag operation if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture as taught by BREED to prevent an occupant from being injured by deployment of the airbag itself.
Regarding claim 48, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 46.
BREED is relied upon to teach determining if the occupant is in an out-of-position posture.
BREED further teaches wherein the out-of-position posture comprises leaning sideways (col. 157 lines 27-30) when an airbag module is situated in a door (col. 157 lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to determine if the occupant is leaning sideways as taught by BREED to prevent injuring the occupant leaning against the airbag module situated in the door.
Regarding claim 49, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 48.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches categorizing at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (col. 153 lines 33-37) so that an occupant restraint device or system may be affected based on the obtained identification and position of at least one of the objects (col. 155 lines 5-6 and 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to categorize at least one occupant as taught by BREED so that an occupant restraint device or system may be affected based on the categorization.
Regarding claim 52, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 45.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BREED teaches generating an alert that an infant is left in the vehicle cabin (col. 141 line 63 - col. 142 line 2) to prevent risk to the child’s health (col. 141 lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to generate an alert if an infant is left in the vehicle cabin as taught by BREED to prevent risk to the child’s health.
Regarding claim 53, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 45.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
BREED teaches comprising monitoring vital signs of at least one of the vehicle cabin (col. 92 lines 10-15 and 28-32) so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site (col. 92 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to monitor vital signs as taught by BREED so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site.
Regarding claim 54, KUNISHI as modified teaches the method of claim 53.
KUNISHI is not relied upon to teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
BREED further teaches triggering a communication system to contact emergency services and to indicate vital signs to emergency personnel (col. 92 lines 10-15 and 28-32) so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site (col. 92 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of KUNISHI to trigger a communication system to contact emergency services and to indicate vital signs to emergency personnel as taught by BREED so that a determination can be made as to the number of ambulances and other equipment to send to an accident site.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNISHI (JP 2008-049718) in view of SHEEN (US 11,715,228), LONGSTAFF (US 10,088,564), BREED (US 9,102,220), and MURATA (US 11,782,147).
Regarding claim 55, KUNISHI as modified teaches the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 3.
KUNISHI is silent regarding the position of the radar unit within the vehicle cabin.
MURATA teaches a single radar unit centrally positioned within the vehicle cabin (Fig. 14, col. 13 lines 21-23) to sense occupants in a vehicle having three rows of seats (col. 13 lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the radar unit of KUNISHI as a single radar unit centrally positioned within the vehicle cabin as taught by MURATA to sense occupants in a vehicle having three rows of seats.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 01/26/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-9, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference KUNISHI.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive because neither BREED nor SHEEN are relied upon to teach the limitation of claim 55 in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SCHUMACHER (DE 102005055068) discloses a radar-based imaging sensor operable to determine the posture of vehicle occupants (0025 lines 1-end).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747