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 with respect to claims 1, and 14-15 set forth on pages 6 and 7 of the 05/22/2026 amendment have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further asserts on page 8 with respect to claims 2-5 that KR’669 fails to compare “a license plate with the identity of the operator to determine authorization.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees in that it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., compare a license plate with the identity of the operator to determine authorization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (see specifically claim 2). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to claims 6-13 and the inferring an identity of a second driver in a second vehicle using a license plate of the second vehicle, KR’669 discloses in the “Background of the Invention” portion that a license plate of a second vehicle (target vehicle) is photographed by a first vehicle (intercepting vehicle). Image recognition then identifies the license plate by comparing to a database storing illegal license plates. Furthermore, Johnson further discloses that unauthorized usage of the vehicle is detected by facial recognition of the driver and compared to a register of authorized users, see col. 8, lines 27-47.
Therefore, the combination of Johnson’s teachings and KR’669’s teaching would have rendered the claimed inferring an identity of a second driver in a second vehicle using a license plate of the second vehicle obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
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, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of CN106570444A, hereinafter referred to as “CN’444.” Note that the English translation of CN’444 (previously provided) is being referenced in the rejection, infra.
As per claim 1, Johnson discloses a monitoring tool in Fig 1 (100), implemented by a processor 110, col. 3, line 54, of a first vehicle and memory configured to use one or more machine learning models (col. 3, line 55): infer a first vehicle driver behavior through a capture of information by one or more sensors of the first vehicle (sensors S1, S2, col. 3, lines 37-41); determine whether the inferred behavior complies with one or more health, safety, and environment (HSE) policies (as broadly claimed, health and safety includes driver attentiveness and driver alertness (e.g. drowsy), see col. 4, line 51 - col. 5, line 14); recognize or identify one or more people other than the first vehicle driver in an environment of the first vehicle (see column 3, lines 47-51, an IR camera detects the presence of a child in the vehicle in case the child is accidentally left in the vehicle); and generate a report that includes at least one of the inferred behavior, an indication of whether the inferred behavior complies with the one or more HSE policies, an HSE policy of the one or more HSE policies with which the inferred behavior violates, or a combination thereof, see col. 8, lines 6-24 and the sending of emergency messages (i.e. reports) to other vehicles nearby.
However, Johnson fails to disclose the monitoring of behavior of one or more people other than the first vehicle driver in said environment and determining if the passenger is in compliance with HSE policies.
CN’444 discloses a driver and passenger monitoring system that performs behavior recognition on both the driver and passengers via facial recognition and subsequently sends a reminder to the driver and/or passenger of the abnormal behavior detected (see bottom of page 1 to the top of page 2 of CN’444).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the in-cabin monitoring system of Johnson with the added ability to monitor passengers for abnormal behavior and report out to the passenger when abnormal behavior is detected as taught by CN’444 since doing so would have provided a more comprehensive safety evaluation of the occupants in a vehicle (driver and passengers). Monitoring the behavior of passengers and alerting them to abnormal behavior also has the potential to avoid any unnecessary distraction to the driver caused by the passenger.
Claim 14 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as set forth in claim 1 above. Furthermore, the computer-readable medium is disclosed by Johnson at col. 3, line 55 (memory stores algorithms).
As per claim 15, the processor is further operable to control one or more components of the vehicle (See Johnson, control of speed, brakes, transmission, see col. 6, lines 4-21) in response to a determination that the behavior captured by the one or more images violates the HSE policy of the one or more HSE policies.
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of CN’444, and further in view of KR100725669B1, hereinafter referred to as KR’669. Note that the English translation of KR’669 is being referenced in the rejection, infra.
As per claim 2, Johnson in view of CN’444 further sets forth a first vehicle (Johnson, the vehicle the current driver being monitored by the sensors and machine learning algorithm is driving) and a second vehicle (vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication, see col. 8, line 8 of Johnson). Johnson further discloses that unauthorized usage of the vehicle is detected by facial recognition of the driver and compared to a register of authorized users, see col. 8, lines 27-47.
Johnson in view of CN’444 fails to disclose wherein the monitoring tool is further configured to: identify a license plate of the second vehicle and compare the license plate of the second vehicle to data of a security database to verify whether the license plate of the second vehicle indicates an authorized second vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle safety using cameras and image recognition), KR’669 discloses in the “Background of the Invention” portion that a license plate of a second vehicle (target vehicle) is photographed by a first vehicle (intercepting vehicle). Image recognition then identifies the license plate by comparing to a database storing illegal license plates.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the vehicular safety system of Johnson in view of CN’444 with the ability to identify the license plate of surrounding vehicles. The motivation being that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to use the pre-existing cameras of Johnson to further identify the license plates of surrounding cars so as to alert the driver to the potential of a stolen vehicle. The driver can then safely distance themselves from the stolen vehicle while alerting law enforcement.
As per claim 3, Johnson in view of CN’444 further identifies at least one of a behavior of the driver of the first vehicle or a behavior of the second vehicle (Johnson identifies behaviors of the driver, i.e. alertness and attentiveness, see col. 4, lines 52 and 66).
As per claim 4, Johnson in view of CN’444 further discloses the monitoring tool is further configured to disable the first vehicle in response to a determination that the identity of the driver is not associated with the first vehicle (see Johnson, col. 8, lines 45-47).
As per claim 5, Johnson in view of CN’444 fails to disclose wherein the monitoring tool is further configured to adjust a field of view of one or more image sensors.
However, KR’669 disclose under the Brief Description of the Drawings that camera control units 11 and 21 control the camera lens to obtain an optimal image of a license plate. The camera is able to be zoomed on the plate, which inherently changes the field of view of the camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cameras of Johnson in view of CN’444 with the enhanced ability to zoom onto a target image (driver face or license plate) as taught by KR’669. The rationale being that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious as doing so would provide optimum images of the subject being photographed, thus permitting enhanced accuracy of the image recognition system.
Claim 6 is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as to claim 2 above.
Claim 7, is rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as to claim 4 above.
Claims 8-13, are rejected for reasoning, mutatis mutandis, as to claims 2 and 5 above.
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 DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights