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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/23/2025, with respect to independent claim 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claims Applicant argues “Independent claims 1 and 14 have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of allowable claims 8 and 18 respectively. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 14 are in condition for allowance” (please see Remarks, pages 8 and 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the currently amended claims 1 and 14, do not includes the allowable subject matter of claims 8 and 14, in their entirety, and further by removing some of the claim subject matter from claims 1 and 14, applicant has changed the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection as being explained below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, and 9-13, are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 9, recites “a first sensor” however should recite “a first motion sensor”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-6, and 9-13, are objected based on their dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection.
Claims 14-17, 19, and 21-24, are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14, line 3, recites “a first sensor” however should recite “a first motion sensor”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 15-17, 19, and 21-24, are objected based on their dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-12, 14-16, 19, 21-22, and 24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle (US PGPUB 2021/0397858 A1) and further in view of Funyak (US PGPUB 2020/0290567 A1) and further in view of Swan (US PGPUB 2019/0047578 A1).
As per claim 1, Buerkle discloses an incident detection system for a (school) bus (Buerkle, Fig. 1:100 and Fig. 4:400, and paragraph 59), the incident detection system comprising:
a plurality of motion sensors disposed within an interior of the (school) bus (Buerkle, Fig. 4:404, and paragraph 65, discloses motion sensors), each sensor of the plurality of motion sensors configured to detect events within a plurality of areas of the interior (Buerkle, paragraphs 28, 65, and 100, discloses Sensors 404 may include objects and devices that enable the vehicle to detect movements and audio events from within the vehicle), wherein each area is associated with one of the plurality of motion sensors (Buerkle, paragraphs 65 and 100), wherein the interior is configured to carry student passengers (Buerkle, paragraphs 17, and 21, discloses during a trip in an autonomous vehicle, sensor 108 can monitor interactions between passengers); and
one or more processors coupled to a memory storing instructions, one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Buerkle, paragraph 107) to:
detect an event within the interior using at least a first sensor of the plurality of motion sensors by detecting one or more of a velocity of an object, an acceleration of the object, and a direction of movement of the object (Buerkle, paragraphs 28, 96, and 100, discloses Interaction monitor 106 may use the same sensors used to supply signals to relationship monitor 104 or additional sensors. As disclosed herein, system 100 may monitor the passengers' interactions. Interaction monitor 106 may look for gestures and/or body contact by tracking the movements of the body poses, such as by tracking movement of limbs, head, inanimate objects within the vehicle, etc. Various aspects of body poses may include the movement itself, the speed towards other passengers, and feedback from the other passenger. For example, if a passenger moves his hand towards another person, the speed might give an indicator for the aggressiveness);
responsive to detecting the event, determine a location within the interior for the event based on determining an area associated with the first sensor (Buerkle, paragraphs 28 and 100); and
classify the event as a candidate incident (Buerkle, Fig. 4:406) based on at least one of: the velocity of the object exceeding a threshold velocity, the acceleration of the object exceeding a threshold velocity, or the direction of movement of the object traversing away from one of the one or more suspected participants (Buerkle, paragraph 28, 96, and 100, discloses Interaction monitor 106 may use the same sensors used to supply signals to relationship monitor 104 or additional sensors. As disclosed herein, system 100 may monitor the passengers' interactions. Interaction monitor 106 may look for gestures and/or body contact by tracking the movements of the body poses, such as by tracking movement of limbs, head, inanimate objects within the vehicle, etc. Various aspects of body poses may include the movement itself, the speed towards other passengers, and feedback from the other passenger. For example, if a passenger moves his hand towards another person, the speed might give an indicator for the aggressiveness), wherein the object is a body part of the one of the one or more suspected participants or an item having the direction of movement originating from the one of the one or more suspected participants (Buerkle, paragraph 28, discloses passenger’s hand).
Although Buerkle discloses detection system for the bus (Buerkle, paragraph 49), however does not explicitly disclose that the bus is a school bus. Though said limitation would have been obvious in view of Swan teachings since it is well known in the art that the mass-transit vehicle/bus can be a school bus. For instance, Funyak discloses detection system for the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, and paragraphs 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swan teachings by implementing a detection system to the school bus, as taught by Funyak.
The motivation would be to provide an improved occupant detection system with accurate occupancy presence (paragraph 204), as taught by Funyak.
Buerkle in view of Funyak does not explicitly disclose identify one or more student passengers as suspected participants of the event based, in part, on the determined location within the interior;
Swan discloses identify one or more student passengers as suspected participants of the event based, in part, on the determined location within the interior (Swan, paragraphs 14, 22, and 32, discloses information identifying the type and/or nature of the detected and/or predicted emergency event, the location data associated with the vehicle 104, the vehicle identification data associated with the vehicle 104, and/or the occupant identification data associated with the vehicle 104);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swan teachings by implementing an occupant identifier to the system, as taught by Swan.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for detecting emergency events based on vehicle occupant behavior data (paragraph 1), as taught by Swan.
As per claim 2, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of areas of the interior comprises a seat of a plurality of seats included in the interior of the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4, paragraph 188).
As per claim 3, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of areas of the interior comprises a row of seats of a plurality of rows included in the interior of the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4, shows rows of seats).
As per claim 4, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of areas of the interior comprises a column of seats of a plurality of columns included in the interior of the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6, shows column of seats).
As per claim 5, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of audio sensors configured to detect audio events emitted from areas associated with the audio sensors (Swan, paragraphs 24 and 27-28).
As per claim 9, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more processors is further configured to classify the event as the candidate incident based on the school bus traveling along a route (Swan, paragraphs 16 and 85).
As per claim 10, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of visual sensors configured to capture image data (Swan, paragraph 19), wherein at least one of the one or more processors is further configured to recognize motion events from the captured image data (Swan, Fig. 2:202:244, and paragraphs 19 and 33).
As per claim 11, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more processors is further configured to generate an incident report by automatically populating fields of the incident report based on the identified one or more suspected participants and the candidate incident (Buerkle, paragraphs 49 and 64).
As per claim 12, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 11, further comprising a plurality of audio sensors configured to detect audio events (Swan, paragraphs 24 and 27-28), wherein at least one of the one or more processors is further configured to: detect a name of one or more of the suspected participants from detected audio event (Swan, Fig. 2:210, and paragraph 31) using natural language processing (Buerkle, paragraphs 67 and 81); and
generate the incident report based on the detected name and the determined location (Swan, Fig. 2:252).
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 16, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the method of claim 14, wherein each of the plurality of areas of the interior comprises at least one of a row of seats of a plurality of rows included in the interior of the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4, shows rows of seats), and a column of seats of a plurality of columns included in the interior of the school bus (Funyak, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6, shows column of seats in the school bus).
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 11.
As per claim 21, please see the analysis of claim 10.
As per claim 22, please see the analysis of claim 12.
As per claim 24, please see the analysis of claim 9.
Claim(s) 6, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle (US PGPUB 2021/0397858 A1) and further in view of Funyak (US PGPUB 2020/0290567 A1) and further in view of Swan (US PGPUB 2019/0047578 A1) and further in view of Deng (US PGPUB 2020/0302951 A1).
As per claim 6, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 5, wherein Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan does not explicitly disclose one or more characteristics of an audio event comprise an amplitude and a frequency, wherein at least one of the one or more processor is further configured to: classify a detected audio event as the candidate incident in response to at least one of: the amplitude of the detected audio event exceeding a threshold amplitude and the frequency of the detected audio event exceeding a threshold frequency.
Deng discloses one or more characteristics of an audio event comprise an amplitude and a frequency, wherein at least one of the one or more processor is further configured to: classify a detected audio event as the candidate incident in response to at least one of: the amplitude of the detected audio event exceeding a threshold amplitude and the frequency of the detected audio event exceeding a threshold frequency (Deng, paragraphs 57 and 59, discloses the sound level may be a spectral amplitude that varies as a function of frequency. When the sound level at one or more frequencies exceeds the threshold corresponding to the same frequencies, the frame may be kept in the series of frames for further processing. The threshold may also vary as a function of frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan teachings by implementing activity detector to the system, as taught by Deng.
The motivation would be to utilize sound recognition in order to better identify and distinguish activity in the environment that may pose a security risk (paragraph 3), as taught by Deng.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 6.
Claim(s) 13, and 23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buerkle (US PGPUB 2021/0397858 A1) and further in view of Funyak (US PGPUB 2020/0290567 A1) and further in view of Swan (US PGPUB 2019/0047578 A1) and further in view of Lauer (US PGPUB 2019/0031366 A1).
As per claim 13, Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan further discloses the incident detection system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more processors is further configured to: correlate the determined location with the interior that includes student passengers to the areas within the interior (Swan, Fig. 2:210:240:244), wherein identifying the suspected participants is based on the correlation (Swan, Fig. 2:212:248).
Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan does not explicitly disclose a seating assignment database that assigns passengers to one of the plurality of areas within the interior.
Lauer discloses a seating assignment database that assigns passengers to one of the plurality of areas within the interior (Lauer, paragraphs 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Buerkle in view of Funyak in view of Swan teachings by implementing seat assignment memory to the system, as taught by Lauer.
The motivation would be to learn the seat association in a manner that is relatively fast, efficient, and not prone to human error (paragraph 30), as taught by Lauer.
As per claim 23, please see the analysis of claim 13.
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633