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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21, and 23 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claim 22 has been cancelled. Claim 23 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amendments to claim 1 which incorporate similar subject matter to previous claims 5, 6, and 22, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejections for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous action dated 07/28/2025. On page 9 of Remarks the Applicant argues that “Nowhere does Yang teach that the same radar sensor dynamically switches between two operational fidelity modes or that any subset of antennas is selectively activated or deactivated to achieve different fidelity levels.” However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s overly narrow interpretation of fidelity modes. The Examiner argues that the fidelity is a broad but not indefinite term which includes at least a definition of selective coverage area, as taught by Yang. No where in the previous action does the Examiner claim that Yang explicitly teaches the switching between modes. Rather, the Examiner cited in the previous office action that Zhang further disclosed switching between modes of resolution as a result of trigger events.
Regarding amended claim 20, the Applicant further argues that the low fidelity mode uses a subset of antennas, but this does not limit the interpretation of fidelity beyond the teachings of Yang which reference figure 5 which breaks down a first and second mode by subsets of antennas. The Examiner notes that this claim language is only present in amended claim 20, and not amended claim 1 as argued by the Applicant.
The same or similar reasoning is applied to independent claim 14 and all dependent claims.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa (WO 2020166002 A1), hereinafter Maekawa, in view of Zhang (US 20230341535 A1), hereinafter Zhang, in further view of Yang (WO 2023028834 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa, as shown below, discloses a system comprising the following limitations:
A vehicle comprising (See at least Fig. 1, [0031] “The occupant state detection device 100 is provided in, for example, a control device 3 in the vehicle 1”):
a scanning unit configured to scan and detect an occupant presence in a vehicle interior portion, wherein the vehicle interior portion includes a plurality of zones (See at least [0015] “The execution priority setting unit 21 sets the execution priority P of the occupant status detection process for each of the multiple seats”);
a detection unit including one or more sensors (See at least [0098] “For example, the vehicle 1 has a plurality of doors D (not shown) for getting on and off, and also has sensors (not shown) that detect the opening and closing of each of the plurality of doors D. The resetting necessity determining unit 15 acquires the detection results from these sensors. The reset necessity determining unit 15 determines, based on the acquired detection result, that it is necessary to reset the execution priority P when at least one of the multiple doors D is opened or closed”);
a processor communicatively coupled with the scanning unit and the detection unit (See at least [0108] “That is, each of the functions of the image signal acquisition unit 11, execution order setting unit 12a, occupant status detection unit 13 and reconfiguration necessity determination unit 15 may be realized by a processor”); and
a memory for storing executable instructions, the processor programmed to execute instructions to (See at least [0033] “The memory 32 stores programs for implementing the functions of the image signal acquisition unit 11, the execution order setting unit 12, and the passenger state detection unit 13.”):
determine, using the detection unit, occurrence of a trigger event (See at least [0098] “the vehicle 1 has a plurality of doors D (not shown) for getting on and off, and also has sensors (not shown) that detect the opening and closing of each of the plurality of doors D.”),
determine a scanning unit setting based on the trigger event (See at least [0098] “The reset necessity determining unit 15 determines, based on the acquired detection result, that it is necessary to reset the execution priority P when at least one of the multiple doors D is opened or closed”);
determine a location of the trigger event with respect to the vehicle (See at least [0098] “the vehicle 1 has a plurality of doors D (not shown) for getting on and off, and also has sensors (not shown) that detect the opening and closing of each of the plurality of doors D.”);
determine one or more zones, from the plurality of zones, based on the location of the trigger event (See at least [0098] “the vehicle 1 has a plurality of doors D (not shown) for getting on and off, and also has sensors (not shown) that detect the opening and closing of each of the plurality of doors D.”);
determine, based on the location of the trigger event, a scan order for the one or more zones (See at least [0098] “The reset necessity determining unit 15 determines, based on the acquired detection result, that it is necessary to reset the execution priority P when at least one of the multiple doors D is opened or closed); and
Maekawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanning unit comprises a radar sensor comprising a plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas; wherein the memory stores a mapping between a plurality of trigger event types and a respective predefined delay associated with each trigger event type of the plurality of trigger event types; determine that the trigger event is of a first trigger event type; determine a first predefined delay associated with the first trigger event type; output a control signal to the scanning unit after the first predefined delay to scan the vehicle interior portion based on the scanning unit setting and the scan order. However, Zhang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
wherein the scanning unit comprises a radar sensor comprising a plurality of transmitting antennas and a plurality of receiving antennas (See at least Fig. 1, [0021] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an example RF sensing system 105 capable of performing RF sensing in a vehicle or environment as described herein”, [0023] “Additionally, although Tx antenna(s) 115 and Rx antenna(s) 120 are illustrated as being separate antennas, some embodiments may use the same one or more antennas for transmission and reception.”)
wherein the memory stores a mapping between a plurality of trigger event types and a respective predefined delay associated with each trigger event type of the plurality of trigger event types (See at least Fig. 5, [0043] “Embodiments involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, for example, may wait for a threshold period of time before employing RF sensing to determine whether a pet or child is left in the vehicle. […] Longer periods of time can account for cases in which a driver may exit the vehicle momentarily. […] Additionally or alternatively, embodiments may adjust this threshold based on sensor and/or other information regarding the vehicle and/or environmental factors”);
determine that the trigger event is of a first trigger event type (See at least Fig. 5, [0043] “Embodiments involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, for example, may wait for a threshold period of time before employing RF sensing to determine whether a pet or child is left in the vehicle.”);
determine a first predefined delay associated with the first trigger event type (See at least Fig. 5, [0043] “Embodiments involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, for example, may wait for a threshold period of time before employing RF sensing to determine whether a pet or child is left in the vehicle.”);
output a control signal to the scanning unit after the first predefined delay to scan the vehicle interior portion based on the scanning unit setting and the scan order. (See at least Fig. 5 Items 505-515)
wherein the processor is configured to cause the scanning unit to switch between the low fidelity mode and the high fidelity mode based on at least one of the trigger event type or detection of the occupant presence (See at least Fig. 5 Items 515-530, [0041] “Trigger conditions in these embodiments may comprise detecting the opening and/or closing of a vehicle door or window”, [0005] “An example device for providing RF sensing in a vehicle, according to this disclosure, comprises one or more wireless transceivers, a memory, and one or more processors communicatively coupled with one or more wireless transceivers and the memory” Zhang discloses the second trigger event as a object/motion detection)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize power consumption (See at least [0044] “For embodiments, such as those involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, which the process of FIG. 5 may occur when the vehicle is powered off, the preliminary use of low-resolution in this manner can help ensure low power used to help meet stringent power consumption requirements of auto manufacturers when a vehicle is turned off”).
The combination of Maekawa and Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanning unit comprises a high fidelity mode in which the scanning unit uses a first number of the plurality of transmitting antennas and the plurality of receiving antennas, and a low fidelity mode in which the scanning unit uses a second number of the plurality of transmitting antennas and the plurality of receiving antennas, and wherein the second number is smaller than the first number. However, Yang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the scanning unit comprises a high fidelity mode in which the scanning unit uses a first number of the plurality of transmitting antennas and the plurality of receiving antennas, and a low fidelity mode in which the scanning unit uses a second number of the plurality of transmitting antennas and the plurality of receiving antennas (See at least Figs. 1-2, 6, [0105] “the antenna array 5 of the radar system may include a first antenna 51 and a second antenna 52, and the first antenna 51 can transmit a first transmission wave at a first preset power and a first preset area; the second antenna 52 can transmit a second transmission wave at a second preset power and a second preset area” [0074] “The power of the second transmission wave is higher than that of the first transmission wave.”) and wherein the second number is smaller than the first number (See at least Figs. 1-2, 6, [0105] “the first antenna 51 can transmit a first transmission wave at a first preset power and a first preset area; the second antenna 52 can transmit a second transmission wave at a second preset power and a second preset area, wherein the second antenna 52 may include: a first regional antenna group 521, a second regional antenna group 522, a third regional antenna group 523, a fourth regional antenna group 524 and a fifth regional antenna group 525.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang with the radar system disclosed by Yang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection accuracy (See at least [0048] “This can prevent interference caused by the transmission wave being transmitted to other obstacles in the cabin environment on the one hand, and can improve the detection accuracy of the living being on the other hand.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa does not disclose the location of the trigger event is in the vehicle. However, Zhang further discloses
the location of the trigger event is in the vehicle (See at least [0038] “the trigger condition may be a determination that the vehicle has been turned off”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang with the radar system disclosed by Yang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize power consumption (See at least [0044] “For embodiments, such as those involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, which the process of FIG. 5 may occur when the vehicle is powered off, the preliminary use of low-resolution in this manner can help ensure low power used to help meet stringent power consumption requirements of auto manufacturers when a vehicle is turned off”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses
the processor is further configured to obtain an occupant status information from the scanning unit in response to scanning the one or more zones (See at least [0022] “The detection target seat selection unit 22 selects one or more seats S (hereinafter referred to as "detection target seats") that are to be subjected to the occupant state detection process among the multiple seats S in the vehicle 1, based on the execution priority P set by the execution priority setting unit 21.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Maekawa further discloses
the processor is further configured to deactivate the scanning unit when the occupant status information indicates presence of the occupant (See at least [0074] “the occupant status detection unit 13a first executes occupant status detection processing for the right front seat S1 for X seconds, then executes occupant status detection processing for the left front seat S2 for Y seconds, then executes occupant status detection processing for the right front seat S1 for X seconds, and then executes occupant status detection processing for the right rear seat S3 for Y seconds.” Maekawa discloses performing the scanning function for a definite time before concluding. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the term “when” does not define a cause-and-effect relationship between the deactivation of the scanning unit and the presence of the occupant.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses
the processor is further configured to transmit control instructions, based on the results of the scan, to at least one of: the scanning unit to modify the scanning unit setting, or a vehicle component to control a vehicle component operation (See at least [0004] “the results of detection by an OMS are used to control an airbag.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Maekawa does not disclose the processor is configured to modify the scanning unit setting from a low fidelity mode to a high fidelity mode or from the high fidelity mode to the low fidelity mode based on occupant presence detection. However, Zhang further discloses
the processor is configured to modify the scanning unit setting from a low fidelity mode to a high fidelity mode or from the high fidelity mode to the low fidelity mode based on occupant presence detection (See at least Fig. 5 Items 515-530, [0046] “If an object or motion is detected, the process can move to block 530, where high-resolution object/motion detection is performed”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the radar system disclosed by Yang with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize power consumption (See at least [0044] “For embodiments, such as those involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, which the process of FIG. 5 may occur when the vehicle is powered off, the preliminary use of low-resolution in this manner can help ensure low power used to help meet stringent power consumption requirements of auto manufacturers when a vehicle is turned off”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses
the scan order is associated with a sequential order of scanning of the one or more zones (See at least [0029] “The occupant status detection unit 13 sequentially executes occupant status detection processing for the detection target seats selected by the execution order setting unit 12 (more specifically, the detection target seat selection unit 22) one seat at a time based on the execution order O set by the execution order setting unit 12”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa further discloses
the second trigger event occurs at a location, wherein the location is in the vehicle or in a vehicle proximity (See at least [0098] “For example, the vehicle 1 has a plurality of doors D (not shown) for getting on and off, and also has sensors (not shown) that detect the opening and closing of each of the plurality of doors D. The resetting necessity determining unit 15 acquires the detection results from these sensors. The reset necessity determining unit 15 determines, based on the acquired detection result, that it is necessary to reset the execution priority P when at least one of the multiple doors D is opened or closed”).
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Maekawa additionally discloses
determining the scan order for the scanning unit further based on a historical vehicle usage information (See at least [0054] “the execution priority setting unit 21 sets the execution priority P for the driver's seat to a fifth value”, [0056] “The execution priority setting unit 21 is configured to select an occupied seat in which a child is seated).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Maekawa additionally discloses
the scan order is associated with a predetermined sequential order of scanning the plurality of zones (See at least [0062] “the occupant state detection unit 13 sequentially executes the occupant state detection process for each of the multiple seats S in the vehicle 1 based on a predetermined execution order O'.”).
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa does not disclose the trigger event types include: rear door opening; front door opening; switching ON or OFF of climate control; trunk opening; opening a window; or a person approaching the vehicle. However, Zhang further discloses
the trigger event types include: rear door opening; front door opening; switching ON or OFF of climate control; trunk opening; opening a window; or a person approaching the vehicle (See at least Fig. 5 Items 515-530, [0041] “Trigger conditions in these embodiments may comprise detecting the opening and/or closing of a vehicle door or window”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the radar system disclosed by Yang with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize power consumption (See at least [0044] “For embodiments, such as those involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, which the process of FIG. 5 may occur when the vehicle is powered off, the preliminary use of low-resolution in this manner can help ensure low power used to help meet stringent power consumption requirements of auto manufacturers when a vehicle is turned off”).
Regarding claim 23, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 21. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 21, shown above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa, in view of Zhang, in further view of Yang (WO 2023028834 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maekawa, Zhang, and Yang as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Maekawa does not disclose the vehicle interior portion, the scanning unit operates in the low fidelity mode followed by the high fidelity mode. However, Zhang further discloses
the vehicle interior portion, the scanning unit operates in the low fidelity mode followed by the high fidelity mode (See at least Fig. 5, Items 515-530).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle occupant system disclosed by Maekawa with the radar system disclosed by Yang with the trigger system disclosed by Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously minimize power consumption (See at least [0044] “For embodiments, such as those involving detecting a child or pet left in the vehicle, which the process of FIG. 5 may occur when the vehicle is powered off, the preliminary use of low-resolution in this manner can help ensure low power used to help meet stringent power consumption requirements of auto manufacturers when a vehicle is turned off”).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648