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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response, filed 1/28/2026, to the last office action includes amendments for claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20. Please see below for updated interpretations and rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been considered but are moot as the amendments now raise 112(b) issues that would preclude the examiner from doing a reasonable prior art search. Please see the updated rejections in light of the amendments as detailed below.
As such, the action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 disclose learn(ing) the degree of risk associated with a posture of the passenger corresponding to the first image or the second image based on the first image or the second image. How the claim is amended it makes this limitation redundant. It is recommended to remove either “corresponding to the first image or the second image” or “based on the first image or the second image”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim states the following:
Lines 6-8 discloses “generate seating information of the passenger based on the first image” and “generate posture information of the passenger with the generated seating information based on at least the first image or the second image”. It is unclear how seating information of the passenger based on the first image is able to be generated since the first image is only captured; it’s the second image that include the passenger, which is a face of the passenger in this case. Thus, it is unclear if any passenger or even the same passenger is in the first image and unclear how it can generate seating information based on the first image.
Line 14 discloses “learn the degree of risk associated with a posture of the passenger” but posture information of the passenger was previously generated so unclear if it is referring to the same posture of a separate one. Further, it is unclear how the degree of risk is able to be associated with a first image when there is no passenger tied to the first image; only the second image includes the passenger as amended.
Regarding claim 8, it is disclosed to “match and store the posture information with the degree of risk”, but it is unclear if the match and store is referring to the degree of risk of the new posture, as further amended, or the previous posture.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear how to match a passenger contained in the first image when there is no passenger claimed in the first image; only the second image includes the passenger as amended. Further, it is unclear whether “a passenger” in the second image is referring to the same one already claimed or a different passenger.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear how the “seating information of all passengers in the vehicle are generated” when the claims have only ever referred to a single passenger; it was never disclosed one or more passengers are in the vehicle. It would be highly recommended to state “at least one or more passengers” to include scenarios when it is one passenger and others when it is more than one passenger.
Regarding claims 14-17, and 19-20, the rejections of claims 1, 8, and 10-11 correspond to those claims as well and appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comments
The Office has established rejections under 35 USC 112(b) with regard to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20. The scope of claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) render applicant's claims as being incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-17, and 19-20 cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
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 Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights