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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 11-14 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upmanue et al. (U.S. 2020/0074197 A1) in view of Tal et al. (U.S. 2022/0019829 A1) in view of Switkes et al. (U.S. 2018/0210462 A1).
Claim 1, Upmanue teaches:
An information processing apparatus (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 100) capable of communicating with a management server (Upmanue, Paragraph [0016], The vehicle system 100 can communicate with an off-board server via transceiver 105.), the information processing apparatus comprising a controller (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 101) configured to execute operations (Upmanue, Paragraph [0012]), the operations comprising:
acquiring sensor information from a sensor installed in a vehicle (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle includes a plurality a sensors as well as in-vehicle camera 103 and external camera 107.);
detecting an abnormality in the vehicle based on the sensor information (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032], The abnormality includes both behaviors of the occupants inside the vehicle and also the presence of an object in which the occupants inside the vehicle are attempting to see, e.g. squinting.);
determining whether a content of the abnormality relates to a suspicious object upon determination that the content of the abnormality relates to the suspicious object (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032], The content of the abnormality includes any sensor data potentially related to the presence of a detected object, e.g. LIDAR data, images, sensing a driver squinting.), inferring a size of the suspicious object (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0028-0029], The ECU 101 in conjunction with a plurality of sensors of the vehicle 100 is capable of detecting and classifying objects, e.g. a vehicle or object that is in the front peripheral of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the step of classifying objects to effectively infer a size of said object. For example, if the object is a vehicle, the classified vehicle would have a size that is different than the size of a road sign (see Upmanue, Paragraphs [0047-0048]).);
receiving from the management server of the content related to the abnormality (Upmanue, Paragraph [0038], Based on data from the driver status monitoring system (DSM), which includes abnormal situations regarding the vehicle occupant (see Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032]), the system 100 may receive additional information about objects external to the vehicle.).
Upmanue does not specifically teach:
Determining a size of the suspicious object;
notifying the management server of the content of the abnormality;
setting an urgency level based on the size of the suspicious object, wherein the urgency level is set higher for a first object than for a second object when a first size of the first object is larger than a second size of the second object; and
notifying the management server of the urgency level.
Tal teaches:
Determining a size of the suspicious object (Tal, Paragraph [0048]);
notifying the management server of a content of the abnormality (Tal, Paragraph [0012], Digital images collected by a vehicle is transmitted to a server.);
setting an urgency level based on a size of the suspicious object (Tal, Paragraph [0048], The determination as to whether to discard or retain a potential object 12 in an image or images is functionally equivalent to an “urgency level” of a detected object. Thus, in the example, when a potential object 12 has increased in size, despite being previously reported, the image of the potential object 12 is retained because of its “urgency”. It is noted that 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).); and
notifying the management server of the urgency level (Tal, Paragraphs [0047-0048], By retaining the object data, the system effectively notifies the server 107 of an “urgency” of a detected object 12 of interest, because the object 12 has increased in size. For example, if the object 12 was previously reported and did not increase in size, the object 12 data would have been discarded by the system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Upmanue by integrating the teaching of an incident identification and reporting system, as taught by Tal.
The motivation would be to identify and enable repairing of roads to reduce damage and degradation for the roads (see Tal, Paragraphs [0007-0008]).
Upmanue in view of Tal does not specifically teach:
Wherein the urgency level is set higher for a first object than for a second object when a first size of the first object is larger than a second size of the second object.
Switkes teaches:
Wherein the urgency level is set for a first object and a second object based on the sizes of the objects (Switkes, Paragraph [0175], The systems 900/1000 detect or ascertain the size and relative velocity of objects 806 in space 810, and based on the size and relative velocity, assign a threat level to each object. Examples of varying threat levels include medium and high (see Switkes, Fig. 11), and examples of objects include cars, buses, trucks, pedestrians, etc. (see Switkes, Paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for it to be within the scope of the teachings of Switkes for a higher threat level to be assigned to a larger object and a lesser threat level to be assigned to a smaller object, based on the determination of the determination module 904. One example includes a pedestrian yielding an emergency level, i.e. a high urgency level, wherein road debris, such as a tire tread, is given a non-emergency level, i.e. a low urgency level, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is within the scope of Switkes for road debris to be smaller in size than a pedestrian.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Upmanue in view of Tal with the teaching of threat levels in Switkes.
The motivation would be to further maintain road safety and avoiding collisions due to hazards (see Switkes, Paragraph [0005).
Claim 3, Upmanue in view of Tal, in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the sensor includes an image sensor, a door sensor, and/or a millimeter wave sensor (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle includes a plurality a sensors as well as in-vehicle camera 103 and external camera 107.).
Claim 4, Upmanue in view of Tal, in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
the sensor includes a camera (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107), and
the operations comprise:
upon determining that the content of the abnormality is the suspicious object and that a content of the suspicious object cannot be determined, capturing an enlarged image of the suspicious object by adjusting an orientation, viewing angle, and/or zoom level of the camera (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0047-0048], The target object 401 is an object in which the vehicle occupant is attempting to identify, via an abnormal behavior, e.g. squinting. The target object 401 is thus functionally equivalent to a suspicious object in which the vehicle occupant is attempting to identify. The vehicle’s camera may be able to zoom in to the object in order to collect detailed images of the object.); and
notifying the management server of the enlarged image (Upmanue, Paragraph [0038], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system 100 to communicate data to the off-board server regarding an object, including the image of the object, for purposes of collecting additional information of the object from the off-board server. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 8, Upmanue in view of Tal, in view of Switkes further teaches:
A vehicle having the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 mounted therein (Upmanue, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0012]).
Claim 9, Upmanue teaches:
An information processing method by an information processing apparatus (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 100) capable of communicating with a management server (Upmanue, Paragraph [0016], The vehicle system 100 can communicate with an off-board server via transceiver 105.), the information processing method comprising:
acquiring sensor information from a sensor installed in a vehicle (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle includes a plurality a sensors as well as in-vehicle camera 103 and external camera 107.);
detecting an abnormality in the vehicle based on the sensor information (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032], The abnormality includes both behaviors of the occupants inside the vehicle and also the presence of an object in which the occupants inside the vehicle are attempting to see, e.g. squinting.);
determining whether a content of the abnormality relates to a suspicious object (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032], The abnormality includes both behaviors of the occupants inside the vehicle and also the presence of an object in which the occupants inside the vehicle are attempting to see, e.g. squinting.);
inferring a size of the suspicious object (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0028-0029], The ECU 101 in conjunction with a plurality of sensors of the vehicle 100 is capable of detecting and classifying objects, e.g. a vehicle or object that is in the front peripheral of the vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the step of classifying objects to effectively infer a size of said object. For example, if the object is a vehicle, the classified vehicle would have a size that is different than the size of a road sign (see Upmanue, Paragraphs [0047-0048]).);
receiving from the management server of a content related to the abnormality (Upmanue, Paragraph [0038], Based on data from the driver status monitoring system (DSM), which includes abnormal situations regarding the vehicle occupant (see Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032]), the system 100 may receive additional information about objects external to the vehicle.).
Upmanue does not specifically teach:
Upon determination that the content of the abnormality relates to the suspicious object:
determining a size of the suspicious object;
determining an urgency level based on the size of the suspicious object, wherein the urgency level is set higher for a first object than for a second object when a first size of the first object is larger than a second size of the second object; and
notifying the management server of the content of the abnormality and the urgency level.
Tal teaches:
Upon determination that the content of the abnormality relates to the suspicious object (Tal, Paragraph [0012], Digital images collected by a vehicle is transmitted to a server. An abnormality is interpreted as an image or a series of images having an object 12 therein versus an image or series of images without objects 12 (see Tal, Fig. 2: 16a-16d).):
determining a size of the suspicious object (Tal, Paragraph [0048]);
determining an urgency level based on the size of the suspicious object (Tal, Paragraph [0048], The determination as to whether to discard or retain a potential object 12 in an image or images is functionally equivalent to an “urgency level” of a detected object. Thus, in the example, when a potential object 12 has increased in size, despite being previously reported, the image of the potential object 12 is retained because of its “urgency”. It is noted that 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).); and
notifying the management server of the content of the abnormality and the urgency level (Tal, Paragraphs [0047-0048], By retaining the object data, the system effectively notifies the server 107 of an “urgency” of a detected object 12 of interest, because the object 12 has increased in size. For example, if the object 12 was previously reported and did not increase in size, the object 12 data would have been discarded by the system.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Upmanue by integrating the teaching of an incident identification and reporting system, as taught by Tal.
The motivation would be to identify and enable repairing of roads to reduce damage and degradation for the roads (see Tal, Paragraphs [0007-0008]).
Upmanue in view of Tal does not specifically teach:
Wherein the urgency level is set higher for a first object than for a second object when a first size of the first object is larger than a second size of the second object.
Switkes teaches:
Wherein the urgency level is set for a first object and a second object based on the sizes of the objects (Switkes, Paragraph [0175], The systems 900/1000 detect or ascertain the size and relative velocity of objects 806 in space 810, and based on the size and relative velocity, assign a threat level to each object. Examples of varying threat levels include medium and high (see Switkes, Fig. 11), and examples of objects include cars, buses, trucks, pedestrians, etc. (see Switkes, Paragraph [0134]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for it to be within the scope of the teachings of Switkes for a higher threat level to be assigned to a larger object and a lesser threat level to be assigned to a smaller object, based on the determination of the determination module 904. One example includes a pedestrian yielding an emergency level, i.e. a high urgency level, wherein road debris, such as a tire tread, is given a non-emergency level, i.e. a low urgency level, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is within the scope of Switkes for road debris to be smaller in size than a pedestrian.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Upmanue in view of Tal with the teaching of threat levels in Switkes.
The motivation would be to further maintain road safety and avoiding collisions due to hazards (see Switkes, Paragraph [0005).
Claim 11, Upmanue in view of Tal in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the sensor includes an image sensor, a door sensor, and/or a millimeter wave sensor (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107, Paragraph [0013], The vehicle includes a plurality a sensors as well as in-vehicle camera 103 and external camera 107.).
Claim 12, Upmanue in view of Tal in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, wherein
the sensor includes a camera (Upmanue, Fig. 1: 103, 107), and
the information processing method comprises:
upon determining that the content of the abnormality is the suspicious object and that a content of the suspicious object cannot be determined, capturing an enlarged image of the suspicious object by adjusting an orientation, viewing angle, and/or zoom level of the camera (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0047-0048], The target object 401 is an object in which the vehicle occupant is attempting to identify, via an abnormal behavior, e.g. squinting. The target object 401 is thus functionally equivalent to a suspicious object in which the vehicle occupant is attempting to identify. The vehicle’s camera may be able to zoom in to the object in order to collect detailed images of the object.); and
notifying the management server of the enlarged image (Upmanue, Paragraph [0038], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system 100 to communicate data to the off-board server regarding an object, including the image of the object, for purposes of collecting additional information of the object from the off-board server. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 13, Upmanue in view of Tal in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 9, comprising:
upon determining that the content of the abnormality relates to a passenger, analyzing a condition of the passenger (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032]); and
notifying the management server of the condition of the passenger (Upmanue, Paragraph [0038], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the system 100 to communicate data to the off-board server regarding an occupant’s condition, including the abnormal condition of the occupant, such as the occupant squinting to attempt to view an object, for purposes of collecting additional information of the object from the off-board server. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.).
Claim 14, Upmanue in view of Tal in view of Switkes further teaches:
The information processing method according to claim 13, wherein the condition of the passenger includes an age, gender, posture, behavior, pulse rate, blood pressure, and/or respiratory rate of the passenger (Upmanue, Paragraphs [0018-0020] and [0032], The condition of the driver includes the driver’s heartbeat.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment.
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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686