DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Request for Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17© has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s remarks received on 03/20/2026 with respect to the amended independent claims have been acknowledged and are moot in view of a new ground of rejected necessitated by the corresponding amendment. Currently claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected; and claims 2-4 and 6-8 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an image processing unit, a recognition condition information acquisition unit, an occupant detection unit, a vehicle operational information acquisition unit, and a vehicle sensor information acquisition unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al (US Pub: 2019/0163997) and in further view of Nemat-Nasser et al (US Pub: 2014/0324281), Miller et al (US Pub: 20180065582), Zhao et al (US Pub: 20150186715), and Yang et al (US Pub: 20110274314).
Regarding claim 1 (currently amended), Matsumura et al teaches: A condition monitoring apparatus, comprising: an image processing unit that processes an image picked up by an in-vehicle camera capturing an image of an occupant in a vehicle [p0035]; a recognition condition information acquisition unit that acquires recognition condition information specified for a vehicle or a specified occupant [p0036-p0039]; and an occupant detection unit that sets an image recognition condition by using the recognition condition information, recognizes an image processed by the image processing unit under the image recognition condition, and detects the specified occupant [p0064-p0070]. Matsumura et al further teaching instantaneous and accumulated information of vehicle and face for identifying driver change in [p0071-p0078]
Matsumura et al can determine change of a driver based on any of the vehicle and face information. In the same field of endeavor, Nemat-Nasser et al explicitly exemplifies taking vehicle and face information together as image recognition condition: wherein the recognition condition information acquisition unit includes a vehicle operational information acquisition unit that acquires vehicle operational information, a vehicle sensor information acquisition unit that acquires vehicle sensor information [p0021 (gear position, speed sensor)], and a personal identification unit that performs personal identification by using an image processed by the image processing unit [p0016], the occupant detection unit sets the image recognition condition using instantaneous information of a first information group including at least one of the vehicle operational information, the vehicle sensor information, and a result of personal identification, and sets the image recognition condition using accumulated information of a second information group including at least one of the vehicle operational information, the vehicle sensor information, and the result of personal identification, and the first information group differs from the second information group at least partially [p0034, p0035 (Vehicle performance data and operational data such as gear position, speed data, and driver’s info such as weight and face are collected instantaneously at any given moment and accumulatively over a period of time to determine whether driver has changed.)].
Therefore, given Nemat-Nasser et al’s teaching on collecting and comparing instantaneous and accumulated information, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the two to determine whether a driver has changed based on comparison of instantaneous and accumulated vehicle and personal information for improved accuracy.
Matsumura et al in view of Nemat-Nasser et al does not set recognition condition by the following three conditions. In the same field of endeavor, Miller et al, Zhao et al, and Yang et al teach: the occupant detection unit sets the image recognition condition by using at least one of information indicating a relative position to the vehicle at which the in-vehicle camera is disposed [Miller: abstract], information indicating a relative position to the vehicle at which a device concerning driving operation is disposed [Zhao: p0016, p0041], and information concerning occupant attire [Yang: p0003-p0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply to Matsumura et al’s driver monitoring framework, Nemal-Nasser et al’s driver face identification with use of accumulated face data and Miller et al, Zhao et al, and Yang et al’s in-vehicle camera view point to locate occupant regions, driver location the select driver side candidate, and clothing or attire as visual feature to distinguish and track specified occupant for improving accuracy.
Regarding claim 5 (currently amended), the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein. Matsumura et al further teaches: The condition monitoring apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the occupant detection unit sets an image recognition condition by using, as the vehicle sensor information, at least any of information indicating a vehicle speed, information indicating a shift position, information indicating a seating location, information indicating an operation state of a start button and an attaching state of a seat belt [p0071-p0075].
Claim 9 (currently amended) has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Matsumura et al’s further teaching on: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in which a condition monitoring program is stored to cause a computer to execute processing [p0017].
Contact
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3751. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Fan Zhang/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights