DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2025 and 08/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, The applicant states that Breed does not disclose using various acquisition angles. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection. Breed discloses “Each set of sensor systems 11-14 comprises a transmitter and a receiver (or just a receiver in some cases) which may be integrated into a single unit” [Col.15, ll.51-54]. The sensors of breed are distributed within the car (See, FIG.2, Parts 11-14, Breed) and may function as a single unit for data acquisition purposes. Breed discloses using various acquisition angles.
Further, The applicants augments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed(US6442504B1) in view of David (US20090046538A1) and in further view of Funyak(US20200290567A1).
Regarding claim 1, Breed discloses
An occupant determination apparatus comprising: acquisition circuitry to acquire a reflected wave reflected in an interior of a vehicle, the reflected wave being a radio wave or an ultrasound wave (“The reflected waves of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic waves are received by the receivers ChA-ChD of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic sensors 11-14” [Col.16, ll.32-36]) in the interior of the vehicle (“monitoring the interior passenger compartment “ [Col.4, ll.33]); a size detector to detect a size of a moving subject in the interior based (“the present invention involves the measurement of one or more morphological characteristics of a vehicle occupant and the use of these measurements to classify the occupant as to size” [Col.13, ll.6-9]) […] for various acquisition angles (“Each set of sensor systems 11-14 comprises a transmitter and a receiver (or just a receiver in some cases), which may be integrated into a single unit or individual components separated from one another” [C0l.15, ll.52-55]); or a load based on the result of detection of the size detector (“An "object" or "occupying item" of a seat; may be a living occupant such as a human or a dog, another living organism such as a plant, or an inanimate object such as a box or bag of groceries or an empty child seat.” [Col.5, ll.29-32]).
Breed discloses the use of a size detector for various angles, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the size is identified using intensities of the reflected waves or wherein occupancy is detected using frequency spectrum. David discloses the apparatus comprising, a size detector to detect a size […] based on intensities of the reflected waves (“The amount of electromagnetic signal absorption is related to the frequency of the signal, and size or bulk of the body portion that the signal impinges upon” [0091] & “the returning waves received by a receiver provide an indication of the absorption of the electromagnetic energy. That is, absorption of electromagnetic energy will vary depending on the presence or absence of a human occupant, the occupant's size” [0092]), an occupant detector to detect whether there is an occupant in the interior based on a frequency spectrum of the reflected wave (“ a time varying electric field is disturbed or modified by the presence of the occupant […] the sensor is based on its capability to sense a change of wave characteristics of the electromagnetic field, such as amplitude, phase or frequency” [0180]);
David teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features of occupancy being detected using frequency spectrum and identifying size using intensities of the reflected waves so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0140, David]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Breed and further modified by David, discloses in combination the use of size and occupancy detectors, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus detects a predetermined occupant or a notification system. Funyak discloses the apparatus comprising,
and a controller to determine whether there is a predetermined occupant in the interior based on a result of detection of the size detector and a result of detection of the occupant detector (“the life detection sensors 30-1 to 30-N are each calibrated to detect an occupant that meets certain predetermined attributes” [0181] & “Various predetermined attributes can be developed to detect individuals of various types, sizes, positions, orientations, etc. “ [0181]), wherein the controller performs control to turn off a notification of notification circuitry relating to the vehicle in response to determining that the moving subject (“The controller can receive sensor data from the life detection sensors and generates a scan result that indicates whether an occupant is present within the vehicle and, if so, one or more remedial actions (e.g., providing notifications pursuant to an alarm escalation process) can be carried out.” [0172]) is an infant (“detect a child “ [0172]) […] and the occupant detector detects no occupant in the interior (“determining that the driver seat is empty “ [0202]).
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed as modified by David with the teachings of Funyak to incorporate the features of detecting a predetermined occupant and a notification system so as to gain the advantage of reducing passenger harm [0003, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Breed discloses the apparatus, wherein the acquisition circuitry is disposed in an upper portion of a front portion of the interior of the vehicle (FIG.1, Part 12).
Regarding claim 3, Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Breed discloses the apparatus, wherein the acquisition circuitry is capable of outputting the wave (“and at least one transducer “ [Col.7, ll.30]) , and a direction of travel of the wave before the reflection output from the acquisition circuitry is set to avoid a protrusion of a ceiling of the interior (“The sensor system 12 is mounted on the upper portion of the intermediate pillar, B-Pillar” [Col.15, ll.57-59] & FIG.1, Part.12) .
Regarding claim 4 Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Breed fails to set forth the occupant determination apparatus of claim 4. Funyak discloses the apparatus, wherein the controller performs control to turn off a notification of notification circuitry relating to the vehicle (“generates a scan result that indicates whether an occupant is present within the vehicle and, if so, one or more remedial actions (e.g providing notifications pursuant to an alarm escalation process) can be carried out.” [0172]) when determining that the moving subject includes a healthy adult based on the result of detection of the size detector regardless of the result of detection of the occupant detector (“the life detection sensors 30-1 to 30-N are each calibrated to detect an occupant that meets certain predetermined attributes” [0181]).
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed as modified by David with the teachings of Funyak to incorporate the features of a notification system including the detection of a healthy adult regardless of the result of detection of the occupant detector so as to gain the advantage of reducing passenger harm [0003, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Breed discloses
An occupant determination method comprising: acquiring, by acquisition circuitry of an occupant detecting apparatus, a reflected wave reflected in an interior of a vehicle, the reflected wave being a radio wave or an ultrasound wave (“The reflected waves of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic waves are received by the receivers ChA-ChD of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic sensors 11-14” [Col.16, ll.32-36]) in an interior of a vehicle (“monitoring the interior passenger compartment “ [Col.4, ll.33]); performing, by a size detector of the occupant detecting apparatus, first detection of detecting a size of a moving subject in the interior (“the present invention involves the measurement of one or more morphological characteristics of a vehicle occupant and the use of these measurements to classify the occupant as to size” [Col.13, ll.6-9]) […] for various acquisition angles (“Each set of sensor systems 11-14 comprises a transmitter and a receiver (or just a receiver in some cases), which may be integrated into a single unit or individual components separated from one another” [C0l.15, ll.52-55]); […] or a load based on the result of detection of the size detector (“An "object" or "occupying item" of a seat; may be a living occupant such as a human or a dog, another living organism such as a plant, or an inanimate object such as a box or bag of groceries or an empty child seat.” [Col.5, ll.29-32]).
Breed discloses the use of a size detector for various angles, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the size is identified using intensities of the reflected waves or wherein occupancy is detected using frequency spectrum. David discloses the apparatus comprising, first detection of detecting a size of a moving subject in the interior based on intensities of the reflected waves (“The amount of electromagnetic signal absorption is related to the frequency of the signal, and size or bulk of the body portion that the signal impinges upon” [0091] & “the returning waves received by a receiver provide an indication of the absorption of the electromagnetic energy. That is, absorption of electromagnetic energy will vary depending on the presence or absence of a human occupant, the occupant's size” [0092]), an occupant detector to detect whether there is an occupant in the interior based on a frequency spectrum of the reflected wave (“ a time varying electric field is disturbed or modified by the presence of the occupant […] the sensor is based on its capability to sense a change of wave characteristics of the electromagnetic field, such as amplitude, phase or frequency” [0180]);
David teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features of occupancy being detected using frequency spectrum and identifying size using intensities of the reflected waves so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0140, David]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Breed as modified by David, discloses in combination the use of size and occupancy detectors, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus detects a predetermined occupant or a notification system. Funyak discloses the apparatus comprising, determining, by a controller of the occupant detecting apparatus, whether there is a predetermined occupant in the interior based on a result of the first detection and a result of the second detection (“the life detection sensors 30-1 to 30-N are each calibrated to detect an occupant that meets certain predetermined attributes” [0181] & “Various predetermined attributes can be developed to detect individuals of various types, sizes, positions, orientations, etc. “ [0181]); and performing, by the controller, control to turn off a notification of notification circuitry relating to the vehicle in response to determining that the moving subject (“The controller can receive sensor data from the life detection sensors and generates a scan result that indicates whether an occupant is present within the vehicle and, if so, one or more remedial actions (e.g., providing notifications pursuant to an alarm escalation process) can be carried out.” [0172]) is an infant (“detect a child “ [0172]) […] and no occupant in the interior is detected in the second detection (“determining that the driver seat is empty “ [0202]).
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed as modified by David with the teachings of Funyak to incorporate the features of detecting a predetermined occupant and a notification system so as to gain the advantage of reducing passenger harm [0003, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Breed as modified David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Breed fails to set forth the occupant determination apparatus of claim 7. Funyak discloses the apparatus, wherein the occupant detector detects whether there is the occupant in the interior (“here is provided a vehicle occupant detection system and method that enables detection of occupants within a vehicle cabin ” [0171]) based on learning of the reflected wave acquired by the acquisition circuitry by a plurality of reflections of the wave (“One or more reflected electromagnetic signals are then received at a receiver of the life detection sensor “ [0180]).
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed as modified by David with the teachings of Funyak to incorporate the features of an occupant detector that detects an occupant in a vehicle’s interior based on a reflected wave so as to gain the advantage of reducing passenger harm [0003, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, Breed discloses
An occupant determination method comprising: acquiring, by acquisition circuitry of an occupant detecting apparatus, a reflected wave reflected in an interior of a vehicle, the reflected wave being a radio wave or an ultrasound wave (“The reflected waves of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic waves are received by the receivers ChA-ChD of the ultrasonic or electromagnetic sensors 11-14” [Col.16, ll.32-36]) in an interior of a vehicle (“monitoring the interior passenger compartment “ [Col.4, ll.33]); performing, by a size detector of the occupant detecting apparatus, first detection of detecting a size of a moving subject in the interior(“the present invention involves the measurement of one or more morphological characteristics of a vehicle occupant and the use of these measurements to classify the occupant as to size” [Col.13, ll.6-9]) […] for various acquisition angles (“Each set of sensor systems 11-14 comprises a transmitter and a receiver (or just a receiver in some cases), which may be integrated into a single unit or individual components separated from one another” [C0l.15, ll.52-55]); […] or a load based on the result of detection of the size detector (“An "object" or "occupying item" of a seat; may be a living occupant such as a human or a dog, another living organism such as a plant, or an inanimate object such as a box or bag of groceries or an empty child seat.” [Col.5, ll.29-32]).
Breed discloses the use of a size detector for various angles, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the size is identified using intensities of the reflected waves or wherein occupancy is detected using frequency spectrum. David discloses the apparatus comprising, first detection of detecting a size of a moving subject in the interior based on intensities of the reflected waves (“The amount of electromagnetic signal absorption is related to the frequency of the signal, and size or bulk of the body portion that the signal impinges upon” [0091] & “the returning waves received by a receiver provide an indication of the absorption of the electromagnetic energy. That is, absorption of electromagnetic energy will vary depending on the presence or absence of a human occupant, the occupant's size” [0092]),performing second detection, by an occupant detector of the occupant detecting apparatus, of detecting whether there is an occupant in the interior based on a frequency spectrum of the reflected wave (“ a time varying electric field is disturbed or modified by the presence of the occupant […] the sensor is based on its capability to sense a change of wave characteristics of the electromagnetic field, such as amplitude, phase or frequency” [0180]);
David teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features of occupancy being detected using frequency spectrum and identifying size using intensities of the reflected waves so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0140, David]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Breed as modified by David, discloses in combination the use of size and occupancy detectors, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus detects a predetermined occupant or a notification system. Funyak discloses the method comprising, determining, by a controller of the occupant detecting apparatus, whether there is a predetermined occupant in the interior based on a result of the first detection and a result of the second detection detector (“the life detection sensors 30-1 to 30-N are each calibrated to detect an occupant that meets certain predetermined attributes” [0181] & “Various predetermined attributes can be developed to detect individuals of various types, sizes, positions, orientations, etc. “ [0181]); and performing, by the controller, control to turn off a notification of notification circuitry relating to the vehicle in response to determining that the moving subject (“The controller can receive sensor data from the life detection sensors and generates a scan result that indicates whether an occupant is present within the vehicle and, if so, one or more remedial actions (e.g., providing notifications pursuant to an alarm escalation process) can be carried out.” [0172]) is an infant (“detect a child “ [0172]) […] no occupant in the interior is detected in the second detection (“determining that the driver seat is empty “ [0202]).
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed as modified by David with the teachings of Funyak to incorporate the features of detecting a predetermined occupant and a notification system so as to gain the advantage of reducing passenger harm [0003, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Breed fails to set forth detecting occupancy with the Doppler effect of claim 9. Davis discloses the apparatus wherein, the occupant detector detects whether there is the occupant in the interior based on the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave, by detecting an observed Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave (“such a motion detector sends out a signal and uses the doppler shift of the reflected signal to determine if there is motion in a region of interest” [0275])
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features detecting the Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0141, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Breed fails to set forth detecting occupancy with the Doppler effect of claim 10. Davis discloses the apparatus wherein, the occupant detector detects whether there is the occupant in the interior based on the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave, by detecting an observed Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave(“such a motion detector sends out a signal and uses the doppler shift of the reflected signal to determine if there is motion in a region of interest” [0275])
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features detecting the Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0141, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Breed as modified by David and further modified by Funyak discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Breed fails to set forth detecting occupancy with the Doppler effect of claim 11. Davis discloses the method wherein, performing the second detection, by an occupant detector of the occupant detecting apparatus, of detecting whether there is the occupant in the interior based on the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave includes detecting an observed Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum of the reflected wave (“such a motion detector sends out a signal and uses the doppler shift of the reflected signal to determine if there is motion in a region of interest” [0275])
Funyak teaches in the same field of vehicle occupant detection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breed with the teachings of David to incorporate the features detecting the Doppler effect in the frequency spectrum so as to gain the advantage of improving accuracy [0141, Funyak]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Breed(US6330501B1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.26, ll.40-41] “interior vehicle monitoring.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646