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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nave et al (US 10,789,650)
Information Disclosure Statement
All of the information disclosure statement (IDS) are considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al (DE Publication 102019204630 A1, hereafter Muller) in view of Nave et al (US 10,789,650)
In regards to claim 1, Muller teaches A method performed by a processor of a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving data about an object in a cabin of the vehicle from a sensor; (Paragraph [0009] “At least one camera, in particular an interior camera of the motor vehicle, is preferably used to detect the at least one specific object.”) determining an initial danger level of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user.) identifying a characteristic of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0012] “Accordingly, it represents a further advantageous embodiment of the invention if the at least one predetermined criterion or at least one further predetermined criterion includes that the at least one detected object has a weight that is greater than a predetermined weight limit value and / or a size which is greater than a predetermined size limit value, and / or has a predetermined geometry and / or structure.”) generating an updated danger level based on the characteristic; and (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user; Paragraph [0017] “In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the visual warning is projected onto the object as at least one warning symbol and / or warning sign. Because the warning notice is projected directly onto the object, a projection position that is spatially correlated directly with the position of the detected object is advantageously provided, which allows the user to immediately recognize which detected object the optical warning notice relates to.”). While Muller meets a number of the limitations of the claimed invention, as pointed out more fully above, Muller fails to specifically teach” sending a notification of the updated danger level to a device associated with the object.”
Specifically, Nave et al. teaches a system for reconstructing a vehicular crash (i) receives sensor data of a vehicular crash from at least one mobile device associated with a user; (ii) generates a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the received sensor data; (iii) transmits the scenario model to a user computer device associated with the user; (iv) receives a confirmation of the scenario model from the user computer device ( abstract) .Nave clearly teaches the at least one processor may be programmed to (1) receive data from said at least one sensor; (2) determine that a potential vehicular crash is imminent based upon the received data; and/or (3) transmit one or more high priority packets including a notification that the potential vehicular crash is imminent. The computer system may include additional, less, or alternate functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein, additionally, Nave teaches sensors 105 may detect one or more loose objects in the passenger cabin of vehicle 100. Examples of loose objects include, but are not limited to, mobile electronics, purses and other bags, toys, tissue boxes, trash, and other objects in the vehicle that would move during a vehicular collision. In these embodiments, AM server 415 may include the one or more loose objects in the model scenario and may predict one or more injuries based upon potential trajectories of the one or more loose objects then the User device 204 may be configured to display the scenario model to user 202. User device 204 may be configured to receive input from user 202 about the displayed scenario model and AM server 206 then may update the scenario model ( column 8 lines 6-20, column 9 lines 30-67; column 16 lines 18-35, column 31, line 51-63).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AM server as taught by nave et al in order to alert the user to avoid any collision and/or accurately records aspects of an accident so that human memory and perception is not the only basis for reconstructing and reporting an accident. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant.
In regards to claim 8, Muller teaches A system, comprising: a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the processor: receiving data about an object in a cabin of the vehicle from a sensor; (Paragraph [0009] “At least one camera, in particular an interior camera of the motor vehicle, is preferably used to detect the at least one specific object.”) determining an initial danger level of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user.) identifying a characteristic of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0012] “Accordingly, it represents a further advantageous embodiment of the invention if the at least one predetermined criterion or at least one further predetermined criterion includes that the at least one detected object has a weight that is greater than a predetermined weight limit value and / or a size which is greater than a predetermined size limit value, and / or has a predetermined geometry and / or structure.”) generating an updated danger level based on the characteristic; and (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user; Paragraph [0017] “In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the visual warning is projected onto the object as at least one warning symbol and / or warning sign. Because the warning notice is projected directly onto the object, a projection position that is spatially correlated directly with the position of the detected object is advantageously provided, which allows the user to immediately recognize which detected object the optical warning notice relates to.”). While Muller meets a number of the limitations of the claimed invention, as pointed out more fully above, Muller fails to specifically teach” sending a notification of the updated danger level to a device associated with the object.”
Specifically, Nave et al. teaches a system for reconstructing a vehicular crash (i) receives sensor data of a vehicular crash from at least one mobile device associated with a user; (ii) generates a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the received sensor data; (iii) transmits the scenario model to a user computer device associated with the user; (iv) receives a confirmation of the scenario model from the user computer device ( abstract) .Nave clearly teaches the at least one processor may be programmed to (1) receive data from said at least one sensor; (2) determine that a potential vehicular crash is imminent based upon the received data; and/or (3) transmit one or more high priority packets including a notification that the potential vehicular crash is imminent. The computer system may include additional, less, or alternate functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein, additionally, Nave teaches sensors 105 may detect one or more loose objects in the passenger cabin of vehicle 100. Examples of loose objects include, but are not limited to, mobile electronics, purses and other bags, toys, tissue boxes, trash, and other objects in the vehicle that would move during a vehicular collision. In these embodiments, AM server 415 may include the one or more loose objects in the model scenario and may predict one or more injuries based upon potential trajectories of the one or more loose objects then the User device 204 may be configured to display the scenario model to user 202. User device 204 may be configured to receive input from user 202 about the displayed scenario model and AM server 206 then may update the scenario model ( column 8 lines 6-20, column 9 lines 30-67; column 16 lines 18-35, column 31, line 51-63).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AM server as taught by nave et al in order to alert the user to avoid any collision and/or accurately records aspects of an accident so that human memory and perception is not the only basis for reconstructing and reporting an accident. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant.
In regards to claim 15, Muller teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform: receiving data about an object in a cabin of the vehicle from a sensor; (Paragraph [0009] “At least one camera, in particular an interior camera of the motor vehicle, is preferably used to detect the at least one specific object.”) determining an initial danger level of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user.) identifying a characteristic of the object based on the data; (Paragraph [0012] “Accordingly, it represents a further advantageous embodiment of the invention if the at least one predetermined criterion or at least one further predetermined criterion includes that the at least one detected object has a weight that is greater than a predetermined weight limit value and / or a size which is greater than a predetermined size limit value, and / or has a predetermined geometry and / or structure.”) generating an updated danger level based on the characteristic; and (Paragraph [0008] “The invention now makes use of this knowledge in that certain objects detected in the motor vehicle, such as detected loose objects, are initially classified as a function of their current position with regard to their hazard potential, and only when it is determined according to this classification that one of these objects If there is danger, a warning is issued to the user; Paragraph [0017] “In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the visual warning is projected onto the object as at least one warning symbol and / or warning sign. Because the warning notice is projected directly onto the object, a projection position that is spatially correlated directly with the position of the detected object is advantageously provided, which allows the user to immediately recognize which detected object the optical warning notice relates to.”). While Muller meets a number of the limitations of the claimed invention, as pointed out more fully above, Muller fails to specifically teach” sending a notification of the updated danger level to a device associated with the object.”
Specifically, Nave et al. teaches a system for reconstructing a vehicular crash (i) receives sensor data of a vehicular crash from at least one mobile device associated with a user; (ii) generates a scenario model of the vehicular crash based upon the received sensor data; (iii) transmits the scenario model to a user computer device associated with the user; (iv) receives a confirmation of the scenario model from the user computer device ( abstract) .Nave clearly teaches the at least one processor may be programmed to (1) receive data from said at least one sensor; (2) determine that a potential vehicular crash is imminent based upon the received data; and/or (3) transmit one or more high priority packets including a notification that the potential vehicular crash is imminent. The computer system may include additional, less, or alternate functionality, including that discussed elsewhere herein, additionally, Nave teaches sensors 105 may detect one or more loose objects in the passenger cabin of vehicle 100. Examples of loose objects include, but are not limited to, mobile electronics, purses and other bags, toys, tissue boxes, trash, and other objects in the vehicle that would move during a vehicular collision. In these embodiments, AM server 415 may include the one or more loose objects in the model scenario and may predict one or more injuries based upon potential trajectories of the one or more loose objects then the User device 204 may be configured to display the scenario model to user 202. User device 204 may be configured to receive input from user 202 about the displayed scenario model and AM server 206 then may update the scenario model ( column 8 lines 6-20, column 9 lines 30-67; column 16 lines 18-35, column 31, line 51-63).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AM server as taught by nave et al in order to alert the user to avoid any collision and/or accurately records aspects of an accident so that human memory and perception is not the only basis for reconstructing and reporting an accident. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, in view of Nave at al (US 10,789,650) and further in view of Breed et al. (US Patent 8948442 B2, hereafter Breed).
In regards to claim 2, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 1 and the initial danger level and updated danger level. However, it does not teach movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion.
But Breed further teaches, movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion. (Col 22, Lines 63-67 and Col 23, Lines 1-7 “Although the Doppler Effect has been used to determine whether an occupant has fallen asleep, it has not previously been used in conjunction with a position measuring device to determine whether an occupant is likely to become out of position, i.e., an extrapolated position in the future based on the occupant's current position and velocity as determined from successive position measurements, and thus in danger of being injured by a deploying airbag, or that a monitored object is moving.”; Col 119, Lines 15-40 “When readings are taken while the occupant and/or the vehicle is in motion”)
Muller and Breed are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both deal with the same field of interior vehicle detection. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the teachings of Breed of monitoring movement of the object in the vehicle as the vehicle is in motion. Doing so would advantageously improve vehicle and driver safety as it would help detect dangerous objects that were previously unnoticed.
In regards to claim 3, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the updated danger level is based on a location of the object in the vehicle. (Paragraph [0007] “In a method according to the invention for outputting information to a user of a motor vehicle with regard to at least one specific object located in the motor vehicle, the at least one specific object is detected in the motor vehicle, a current location of the detected specific object is determined, at least as a function of the determined current location of the at least Checks a specific object whether the specific object poses a risk”) However, Muller does not explicitly teach the location of the occupant in the vehicle.
Breed further teaches the location of the occupant in the vehicle. (Col 9, Lines 35-37 “The interior monitoring system is capable of detecting the presence of an object, occupying objects such as a box, an occupant”)
Muller and Breed are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both deal with the same field of interior vehicle detection. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the teachings of Breed of finding the location of the occupant in the vehicle. Doing so would advantageously improve vehicle and driver safety as it would help determine the level or probability of danger the object is to the occupant.
In regards to claim 7, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 1 and the initial and updated danger level. However, it does not teach controlling the vehicle to stop when a threshold is exceeded.
Breed further teaches, controlling the vehicle to stop when a danger threshold is exceeded. (Col 30, Lines 19-36 “Using this system, not only can the position and velocity of the driver be determined and used in conjunction with an airbag system, but it is also possible to determine whether the driver is falling asleep or exhibiting other potentially dangerous behavior by comparing portions of his/her image over time. In this case, the speed of the vehicle can be reduced or the vehicle even stopped if this action is considered appropriate.”)
Muller and Breed are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both deal with the same field of interior vehicle detection. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the teachings of Breed of stopping the vehicle when a danger level is exceeded. Doing so would advantageously improve vehicle and driver safety as it would help prevent potential bodily harm before it would happen.
In regards to claim 9, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 8 and the initial danger level and updated danger level. However, it does not teach movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion.
But Breed further teaches, movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion. (Col 22, Lines 63-67 and Col 23, Lines 1-7 “Although the Doppler Effect has been used to determine whether an occupant has fallen asleep, it has not previously been used in conjunction with a position measuring device to determine whether an occupant is likely to become out of position, i.e., an extrapolated position in the future based on the occupant's current position and velocity as determined from successive position measurements, and thus in danger of being injured by a deploying airbag, or that a monitored object is moving.”; Col 119, Lines 15-40 “When readings are taken while the occupant and/or the vehicle is in motion”)
In regards to claim 10, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the generating of the updated danger level is based on a location of the object in the vehicle. (Paragraph [0007] “In a method according to the invention for outputting information to a user of a motor vehicle with regard to at least one specific object located in the motor vehicle, the at least one specific object is detected in the motor vehicle, a current location of the detected specific object is determined, at least as a function of the determined current location of the at least Checks a specific object whether the specific object poses a risk”) However, Muller does not explicitly teach the location of the occupant in the vehicle.
Breed further teaches the location of the occupant in the vehicle. (Col 9, Lines 35-37 “The interior monitoring system is capable of detecting the presence of an object, occupying objects such as a box, an occupant”)
In regards to claim 14, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 8 and the initial and updated danger level. However, it does not teach controlling the vehicle to stop when a threshold is exceeded.
Breed further teaches, controlling the vehicle to stop when a danger threshold is exceeded. (Col 30, Lines 19-36 “Using this system, not only can the position and velocity of the driver be determined and used in conjunction with an airbag system, but it is also possible to determine whether the driver is falling asleep or exhibiting other potentially dangerous behavior by comparing portions of his/her image over time. In this case, the speed of the vehicle can be reduced or the vehicle even stopped if this action is considered appropriate.”)
In regards to claim 16, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 15 and the initial danger level and updated danger level. However, it does not teach movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion.
But Breed further teaches, movement of the object in the vehicle when the vehicle is in motion. (Col 22, Lines 63-67 and Col 23, Lines 1-7 “Although the Doppler Effect has been used to determine whether an occupant has fallen asleep, it has not previously been used in conjunction with a position measuring device to determine whether an occupant is likely to become out of position, i.e., an extrapolated position in the future based on the occupant's current position and velocity as determined from successive position measurements, and thus in danger of being injured by a deploying airbag, or that a monitored object is moving.”; Col 119, Lines 15-40 “When readings are taken while the occupant and/or the vehicle is in motion”)
In regards to claim 17, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the generating of the updated danger level is based on a location of the object in the vehicle. (Paragraph [0007] “In a method according to the invention for outputting information to a user of a motor vehicle with regard to at least one specific object located in the motor vehicle, the at least one specific object is detected in the motor vehicle, a current location of the detected specific object is determined, at least as a function of the determined current location of the at least Checks a specific object whether the specific object poses a risk”) However, Muller does not explicitly teach the location of the occupant in the vehicle.
Breed further teaches the location of the occupant in the vehicle. (Col 9, Lines 35-37 “The interior monitoring system is capable of detecting the presence of an object, occupying objects such as a box, an occupant”)
In regards to claim 20, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 8 and the initial and updated danger level. However, it does not teach controlling the vehicle to stop when a threshold is exceeded.
Breed further teaches, controlling the vehicle to stop when a danger threshold is exceeded. (Col 30, Lines 19-36 “Using this system, not only can the position and velocity of the driver be determined and used in conjunction with an airbag system, but it is also possible to determine whether the driver is falling asleep or exhibiting other potentially dangerous behavior by comparing portions of his/her image over time. In this case, the speed of the vehicle can be reduced or the vehicle even stopped if this action is considered appropriate.”)
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller in view of Nave and further in view of Jungermann et al. (DE Publication 102019220117 A1, hereafter Jungermann).
In regards to claim 4, Muller teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: identifying a surface in the vehicle as a dangerous surface based on the surface having a height greater than that of another surface, and (Paragraph [0037] “It can then be checked whether the detected object is 26th in a potentially dangerous position within the motor vehicle 10 is located. Corresponding position ranges of the motor vehicle can be used for this 10 which represent such potentially dangerous position areas, defined in advance and, for example, in the memory 16 the control device 14th be saved. Such potentially dangerous areas can be the back seat, for example 28, a dashboard 30th, the area of the front seats 32, a hat rack 34 or the like.”). Muller, however, fails to teach automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface.
However, Jungermann further teaches wherein the sending of the notification comprises: automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered.”)
Muller and Jungermann are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both deal with the same field of interior vehicle detection. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the teachings of Jungermann of notifying the occupant of the vehicle of the object placed on the dashboard. Doing so would advantageously improve vehicle and driver safety as it would help in identifying dangerous objects to the passengers or driver preemptively.
In regards to claim 5, Muller and Jungermann teach the method of claim 4.
However, Jungermann further teaches automatically sending the notification in response to it being detected that the object is on the dangerous surface, before the characteristic is identified. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered. Findings on the type and severity of injury from accident research can be used as a basis for this decision. A possible example of such a decision is, in the case of a state of the dashboard occupied by an object, a suppression of the airbag and / or information from vehicle occupants.”)
In regards to claim 11, Muller teaches the method of claim 8, comprising: identifying a surface in the vehicle as a dangerous surface based on the surface having a height greater than that of another surface, and (Paragraph [0037] “It can then be checked whether the detected object is 26th in a potentially dangerous position within the motor vehicle 10 is located. Corresponding position ranges of the motor vehicle can be used for this 10 which represent such potentially dangerous position areas, defined in advance and, for example, in the memory 16 the control device 14th be saved. Such potentially dangerous areas can be the back seat, for example 28, a dashboard 30th, the area of the front seats 32, a hat rack 34 or the like.”). Muller, however, fails to teach automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface.
However, Jungermann further teaches wherein the sending of the notification comprises: automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered.”)
In regards to claim 12, Muller and Jungermann teach the method of claim 11.
However, Jungermann further teaches automatically sending the notification in response to it being detected that the object is on the dangerous surface, before the characteristic is identified. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered. Findings on the type and severity of injury from accident research can be used as a basis for this decision. A possible example of such a decision is, in the case of a state of the dashboard occupied by an object, a suppression of the airbag and / or information from vehicle occupants.”)
In regards to claim 18, Muller teaches the method of claim 15, comprising: identifying a surface in the vehicle as a dangerous surface based on the surface having a height greater than that of another surface, and (Paragraph [0037] “It can then be checked whether the detected object is 26th in a potentially dangerous position within the motor vehicle 10 is located. Corresponding position ranges of the motor vehicle can be used for this 10 which represent such potentially dangerous position areas, defined in advance and, for example, in the memory 16 the control device 14th be saved. Such potentially dangerous areas can be the back seat, for example 28, a dashboard 30th, the area of the front seats 32, a hat rack 34 or the like.”). Muller, however, fails to teach automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface.
However, Jungermann further teaches wherein the sending of the notification comprises: automatically sending the notification in response to the object being placed on the dangerous surface. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered.”)
In regards to claim 19, Muller and Jungermann teach the method of claim 18.
However, Jungermann further teaches automatically sending the notification in response to it being detected that the object is on the dangerous surface, before the characteristic is identified. (Paragraph [0031] “Based on the detected occupancy and / or the detected seating position and passenger maintenance, a software algorithm then decides to warn the vehicle occupants and which restraint means 108 , 208 , 208n how strong are triggered. Findings on the type and severity of injury from accident research can be used as a basis for this decision. A possible example of such a decision is, in the case of a state of the dashboard occupied by an object, a suppression of the airbag and / or information from vehicle occupants.”)
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al (DE Publication 102019204630 A1, hereafter Muller), in view of Nave at al and further in view of Gassmann et al. (US Publication 20220055620 A1, hereafter Gassmann).
Regarding claim 6, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 1, when one or more the initial danger level or the updated danger level exceeds the threshold and sends a notification. (Paragraph [0017] “In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the visual warning is projected onto the object as at least one warning symbol and / or warning sign. Because the warning notice is projected directly onto the object, a projection position that is spatially correlated directly with the position of the detected object is advantageously provided, which allows the user to immediately recognize which detected object the optical warning notice relates to.”) Muller does not teach comprising a description of a potential outcome associated with the object.
However, Gassmann further teaches comprising a description of a potential outcome associated with the object. (Paragraph [0067] “The message may indicate that a safety risk exists for a particular interior object and/or that the particular object should be secured, repositioned, or otherwise adjusted to reduce the risk of injuring a passenger and/or damaging the object.”)
Muller and Gassmann are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both deal with the same field of interior vehicle detection. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muller to incorporate the teachings of Gassmann of sending a description of a potential outcome associated with the object. Doing so would advantageously improve vehicle and driver safety as it gives a logical reason to the driver to fix the issue and notify them of what could happen if they didn’t follow the instructions.
Regarding claim 13, Muller and Nave teaches the method of claim 1, when one or more the initial danger level or the updated danger level exceeds the threshold and sends a notification. (Paragraph [0017] “In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, the visual warning is projected onto the object as at least one warning symbol and / or warning sign. Because the warning notice is projected directly onto the object, a projection position that is spatially correlated directly with the position of the detected object is advantageously provided, which allows the user to immediately recognize which detected object the optical warning notice relates to.”) Muller does not teach comprising a description of a potential outcome associated with the object.
However, Gassmann further teaches comprising a description of a potential outcome associated with the object. (Paragraph [0067] “The message may indicate that a safety risk exists for a particular interior object and/or that the particular object should be secured, repositioned, or otherwise adjusted to reduce the risk of injuring a passenger and/or damaging the object.”)
Pertinent References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
EP Publication 22173166 A to Sema et al. discloses The invention relates to a method (100) for detecting a safety-relevant event within a passenger cabin (202) of a rail vehicle (201), comprising: - receiving (101) image data (207) of an interior (203) of the passenger cabin (202) of the rail vehicle (201) viewing camera sensor (205);- determining (103) an optical flow (217) of at least one image element (215) of the image data (207) for a predetermined period of time;- recognizing (105) a safety-relevant event based on a characteristic speed pattern ( 218) the determined optical flow (217) by executing a motion detection (211) on the determined optical flow (217), wherein the safety-relevant event includes a safety-endangering movement of an object within the passenger cabin (202); and outputting (107) a warning message relating to the security-relevant event.
DE Publication 102021123129 B4 to Ellermann et al. discloses Method for securing a passenger compartment (2) of a motor vehicle (1), comprising the following steps: a) determining at least one item of object position information (14) relating to a position and at least one item of object extent information (15) relating to a spatial extent and at least one item of object property information (16) relating a property of at least one object (17) located in the passenger compartment (2),b) determining a piece of information about the position of a hazardous area (28) relating to a position and information about the extent of a hazardous area (29) relating to a spatial extent of a hazardous area (30), each depending on the object property information ( 16), wherein the hazard area (30) is that area of the passenger compartment (2) in which deployment of an airbag (5) of the motor vehicle (1) causes a risk of injury to an occupant (4) of the motor vehicle (1) to move the Object (17) caused if the object (17) is at least partially in the hazardous area (30), c) checking the fulfillment of a hazardous condition that is met if the object position information (14) and the object extension information (15) and the hazardous area position information (28) and the hazard area extent information (29) imply that the object (17) is at least partially located in the hazard area (30), and) generating a control signal ( 31) provided the hazard condition is met.
DE Publication 102014003952 A1 to Echtler et al. discloses Method, in a vehicle with interior camera assembly and outdoor camera arrangement, wherein for displaying the vehicle interior and the vehicle exterior at least one interior camera (13, 14, 28) and at least one exterior camera (11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 29) for receiving a respective image stream are provided, wherein the interior camera (13, 14, 28) detects at least a portion of the vehicle interior and the exterior camera (11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 29) detects at least a portion of the vehicle exterior. It is provided that the at least one interior camera (13, 14, 28) and the at least one exterior camera (11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 29) detect at least partial areas of the vehicle interior and the vehicle exterior space and transmit them to a display device (19). pass, wherein the sub-areas adjoin one another at least in parts, preferably so adjacent that the representation by means of the display device (19) on a screen (18, 18 ', 31) to scale and perspective so that the display areas of the vehicle interior and the vehicle exterior at least on the contiguous parts without any discernible change of scale and perspective.
US Patent 11787420 B2 to Jindal et al. discloses A mileage prediction and optimization system (FIG. 1) is disclosed for optimizing the mileage of a vehicle. The mileage prediction and optimization system comprises a prediction and optimization module (300) adapted to determine variation in mileage of the vehicle at least based on the current fuel volume, current speed, current fuel density, the current tire air pressure, the current tire air temperature, current fetched values from an ECU module (700) and the pre-defined mileage data of the vehicle. Further, the prediction and optimization module (300) is adapted to optimize the mileage of the vehicle by reducing variation of fuel density, reducing variation of tire air pressure and informing optimal gear-speed combinations to a user regardless of whether the vehicle is stationary or in motion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANCY BITAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m..
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, Ms. Jennifer Mahmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
NANCY . BITAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/NANCY BITAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664