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 .
Claims 1-5 are pending regarding this application.
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority benefits from JP2023-005930 filed on 01/18/2023. The certified copies of the priority documents were electronically retrieved on 02/01/2024.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/04/2024 and 07/31/2024 are
considered and attached.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeno (JP 2009113708 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Vanhelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0122731 A1), hereinafter Vanhelle.
Regarding claim 1, Komeno teaches an alcohol detection apparatus comprising:
an image sensor configured to generate a captured image by performing imaging of a first occupant in a driver's seat of a vehicle (Komeno teaches that “the right camera 17 and the left camera 18 have directions and shooting ranges so that when the driver D holds the alcohol detector 12 in his hand and blows in exhalation, the light emitting unit 15 of the alcohol detector 12 is positioned at the center of the photographed image” in para. [0024]; this set up inherently involves capturing the driver in the driver’s seat. See also FIGS. 4A and 4B);
a touch sensor provided at the driver's seat and configured to perform a detection of a touch (Komeno teaches that “the seats 30, 40, 50 provided in the vehicle 1 are provided with seating sensors 31, 41, 51 for detecting the seating of each occupant” in para. [0018]);
an alcohol sensor configured to perform a detection of an alcohol component included in breath of the first occupant (Komeno teaches an “alcohol detector 12 detects the alcohol concentration in the exhalation and outputs the detection result to the control unit 11 when exhalation is blown” as shown in para. [0021]; See para. [0024] regarding the alcohol detector being used by the driver); and
a processor configured to perform processes (Komeno teaches a “control unit 11 [which] controls the vehicle 1 based on the alcohol concentration” in para. [0023]) based on the captured image generated by the image sensor (Komeno teaches “when the activation signal Sk is input from the control unit 11, the right camera 17 and the left camera 18 start imaging and output the captured image to the control unit 11” in para. [0024]), a result of the detection performed by the touch sensor (Komeno teaches that “the control unit 11 determines that the occupant is seated when the seating signal Sc is input, and determines that the occupant has stood up or got off when the seating signal Sc is not input” in para. [0030]), and a result of the detection performed by the alcohol sensor (Komeno teaches that “the control unit 11 prohibits the engine control device 23 from starting the engine when the alcohol concentration detected by the alcohol detector 12 is equal to or higher than a legally prescribed value for drunk driving stored in the memory 11a” as shown in para. [0040]),
wherein the processor is configured to
perform a first process of confirming, (Komeno teaches that “the control unit 11 determines that the occupant is seated when the seating signal Sc is input, and determines that the occupant has stood up or got off when the seating signal Sc is not input” in para. [0030]),
perform a second process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether the first occupant in the driver's seat is holding the alcohol sensor (Komeno teaches that, “when the driver picks up the alcohol detector, the light emitting unit is present in a predetermined range of the image captured by the camera, so the control means determines that the driver is detecting alcohol and detects the alcohol” para. [0071]; here, “when the alcohol detection by which the breath detector was blown in with the alcohol detector 12 in hand is performed, the control part 11 is the right side picked-up image P1 and the left side from the right camera 17 and the left camera 18” and “it is determined that the alcohol detection is performed by the driver” in para. [0068]), and
perform a determination process of determining that the result of the detection obtainable by the alcohol sensor is effective when a plurality of conditions is satisfied (Komeno teaches that the proper alcohol detection process has occurred only if the condition of the driver being seated is satisfied (see para. [0030]) and if it is confirmed that the driver themself performed the alcohol detection test (see para. [0060] and [0066]-[0068]), the plurality of conditions comprising that the first occupant is touching the touch sensor in the first process (Komeno teaches that “the control unit 11 determines that the occupant is seated when the seating signal Sc is input, and determines that the occupant has stood up or got off when the seating signal Sc is not input” in order to determine whether or not someone else is impersonating the driver in para. [0030]) and that the first occupant is holding the alcohol sensor in the second process (Komeno teaches that the control unit allows the alcohol detection to take place only when it is determined that the driver is holding the alcohol detector in their hand in para. [0066]-[0068]).
Komeno fails to teach performing a first process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether the first occupant in the driver's seat is touching the touch sensor (emphasis added).
However, Vanhelle teaches performing a first process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether the first occupant in the driver's seat is touching the touch sensor (Vanhelle teaches a system for detecting in-vehicle impairment wherein there exists a “biosensor 120 [which] is a touch-based device located in a predetermined location of the vehicle cabin 101, in the vicinity of driver D” as shown in para. [0043], wherein “a hand rest or arm rest in the cabin 101 that incorporates the biosensor 120 may also include contact sensors to confirm that the driver's arm or hand is in contact with the rest before initiating the biosensor measurement” as shown in para. [0059]; Furthermore “an image based verification is made to determine whether the occupant from which a determination was made in step 203 is in a driving position of the motor vehicle. This verification may be based on a TOF camera mounted in the cabin 101 of the vehicle 100 to collect image data that can distinguish the driver being tested by the biosensor 120 from other occupants of the vehicle tested by the biosensor 120” as shown in para. [0064]. This verification process is a confirmation that the driver is the same individual touching the biosensor/contact sensor).
Komeno and Vanhelle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of preventing fraud within vehicle impairment detection through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Komeno to incorporate the teachings of Vanhelle and include “performing a first process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether the first occupant in the driver's seat is touching the touch sensor”. The motivation for doing so would have been “to provide an in-vehicle impairment detector which verifies that the detected occupant is the vehicle driver” and “to avoid people from fooling the impairment detection system 110 by using the passenger's hand or other objects that may permit an impaired driver to fool the system”, as suggested by Vanhelle in para. [0008] and para. [0048], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Komeno with Vanhelle to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Komeno and Vanhelle teach the alcohol detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to further
perform a fourth process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether a second occupant other than the first occupant is present around the driver's seat (Komeno teaches the control unit confirming whether the driver is being impersonated during the alcohol detection process based on “the photographed image P2” in para. [0068]) (Vanhelle additionally teaches that “the image sensor 130 is preferably a 3D time of flight (TOF) camera that can differentiate the hand of the vehicle driver 405 versus the hand of passengers in vehicle 100” as shown in para. [0048]; similar motivations as applied to claim 1 can be applied here), and
the plurality of conditions further comprises that the second occupant other than the first occupant is not present around the driver's seat in the fourth process (Komeno teaches that when “the light emitting unit 15 is present, it is determined that the alcohol detection is performed by the driver, the alcohol detection is permitted, and the right allowable range A1 of the right-side captured image P1 captured by the right camera 17 and the left camera 18 is detected” in para. [0068]; this process is one of the many process the driver must pass in order to satisfy the criterion necessary to avoid triggering the control unit to control the vehicle to prevent driving (see para. [0043] and [0071]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeno (JP 2009113708 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Vanhelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0122731 A1), hereinafter Vanhelle and Ozaki (JP 2009136393 A, see attached English translation for citations).
Regarding claim 2, Komeno and Vanhelle teach the alcohol detection apparatus according to claim 1.
Komeno and Vanhelle fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to further perform a third process of calculating a distance from a face of the first occupant in the driver's seat to the alcohol sensor based on the captured image, and the plurality of conditions further comprises that the distance is less than or equal to a predetermined distance in the third process.
However, Ozaki teaches wherein the processor is configured to further perform a third process of calculating a distance from a face of the first occupant in the driver's seat to the alcohol sensor based on the captured image (Ozaki teaches “the distance sensor 26, there is a sensor that captures an image of a driver and detects a distance between the captured driver's face and the sprayed portion 25 by a predetermined image analysis program” in para. [0047]), and
the plurality of conditions further comprises that the distance is less than or equal to a predetermined distance in the third process (Ozaki further teaches “a distance determination unit that detects the alcohol component on the condition that the distance determination unit determines that the distance between the driver's face and the sprayed portion is equal to or less than a predetermined distance” in para. [0020]).
Komeno, Vanhelle, and Ozaki are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of preventing fraud within vehicle impairment detection through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Komeno (as modified by Vanhelle) to incorporate the teachings of Ozaki and include “wherein the processor is configured to further perform a third process of calculating a distance from a face of the first occupant in the driver's seat to the alcohol sensor based on the captured image, and the plurality of conditions further comprises that the distance is less than or equal to a predetermined distance in the third process”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “it is difficult for the driver who maintains the state where the driver's face and the sprayed portion are close to each other to perform an illegal act on the sprayed portion”, as suggested by Ozaki in para. [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Komeno and Vanhelle with Ozaki to obtain the invention specified in claim 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeno (JP 2009113708 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Vanhelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0122731 A1), hereinafter Vanhelle and Ertl et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0074142 A1), hereinafter Ertl.
Regarding claim 4, Komeno and Vanhelle teach the alcohol detection apparatus according to claim 1.
Komeno further teaches wherein the processor is configured to further
perform a fifth process of confirming, (Komeno teaches “the controller 11 compares the open / closed state of the door 35 of the driver's seat 30 when alcohol detection is performed on the alcohol detector 12 with the open / closed state of the door 35 of the driver's seat 30 after alcohol detection is performed. Then, it is determined whether or not impersonation is performed” in para. [0033]) and a window of the vehicle are closed (Komeno teaches “the controller 11 compares the open / closed state of the window 34 of the driver's seat 30 when alcohol detection is performed on the alcohol detector 12 with the open / closed state of the window 34 of the driver's seat 30 after alcohol detection is performed. Then, it is determined whether or not impersonation is performed” in para. [0032]), and
the plurality of conditions further comprises that the door and the window of the vehicle are closed in the fifth process (See para. [0032]-[0033]).
Komeno and Vanhelle fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to further
perform a fifth process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether a door and a window of the vehicle are closed (emphasis added).
However, Ertl teaches wherein the processor is configured to further perform a fifth process of confirming, based on the captured image, whether a door and a window of the vehicle are closed (Ertl teaches that “gray-scale images are recorded with the camera 2” in para. [0030] and “the camera 2 is preferably aligned in the center of the vehicle or alternatively in the area of the upper steering spar of the vehicle body such that the image area of the camera above a seat 3 covers a door 4 both in the area of the inside of the door 5 with a door handle 6 and a window 7” as shown in para. [0029], such that “the method according to the invention can be used in order to measure the open state of a window” (para. [0013]) and “it can be concluded whether the door 4 is open or closed” in para. [0036]; see also para. [0016] which discusses a generic overview of how the images are used to determine an open/close state of both a vehicle’s door and/or window). It should be noted that the Ertl reference is included not to teach the entirety of the above limitation, but solely to teach the deficiencies of the Komeno reference, specifically that Komeno fails to teach the process of confirming a state of the door/window based on a captured image.
Komeno, Vanhelle, and Ertl are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicle states through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Komeno (as modified by Vanhelle) to incorporate the teachings of Ertl and include the process of confirming a state of the door/window based on a captured image. The motivation for doing so would have been for the increased protection of vehicle occupants, as suggested by Ertl in para. [0011]-[0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Komeno and Vanhelle with Ertl to obtain the invention specified in claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komeno (JP 2009113708 A, see attached English translation for citations) in view of Vanhelle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0122731 A1), hereinafter Vanhelle and Shoji et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0316037 A1), hereinafter Shoji.
Regarding claim 5, Komeno and Vanhelle teach the alcohol detection apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first process comprises confirming whether a first hand of the first occupant in the driver's seat is touching the touch sensor (Vanhelle teaches that “3D information is processed by the analysis module 140 to validate whether the hand which performed the biosensor (e.g., transdermal alcohol concentration) test is connected to the arm and body of the occupant sitting in the driver's seat as shown by decision block 525” in para. [0071]. Similar motivations as applied to claim 1 can be applied here regarding the combination of Vanhelle and Komeno);
the second process comprises confirming whether a (Vanhelle teaches that “3D information is processed by the analysis module 140 to validate whether the hand which performed the biosensor (e.g., transdermal alcohol concentration) test is connected to the arm and body of the occupant sitting in the driver's seat as shown by decision block 525” in para. [0071]. Similar motivations as applied to claim 1 can be applied here regarding the combination of Vanhelle and Komeno).
While Komeno teaches that the control unit allows the alcohol detection to take place only when it is determined that the driver is holding the alcohol detector in their hand in para. [0066]-[0068], Vanhelle and Komeno fail to teach the second process comprises confirming whether a second hand of the first occupant in the driver's seat is holding the alcohol sensor.
However, Shoji teaches wherein the second process comprises confirming whether a second hand of the first occupant in the driver's seat is holding the alcohol sensor (Shoji teaches that the “control circuit 29 determines that the left hand is not in contact with contact detection electrodes 21A and then determines whether or not the right hand is in contact” in para. [0056]; here, both hands must be touching the contact sensors, wherein the contact sensors are connected to the alcohol sensors as shown in para. [0068]-[0069] and FIG. 1 #15, #19A, and #19B. This process can be combined with Vanhelle’s teaching of determining whether the hand touching the alcohol sensor is that of the occupant sitting in the driver’s seat in para. [0071] to teach the above limitation).
Komeno, Vanhelle, and Shoji are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing vehicle states through image analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Komeno (as modified by Vanhelle) to incorporate the teachings of Shoji and include “the second process comprises confirming whether a second hand of the first occupant in the driver's seat is holding the alcohol sensor”. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve detection accuracy of the drunk driving detection system by using sensors to determine whether the driver has touched the steering wheel, and other methods, and thereby “such a drunk driving detection system can detect an alcohol drinking condition of the driver with high accuracy”, as suggested by Shoji in para. [0007]-[0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Komeno and Vanhelle with Shoji to obtain the invention specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ono (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0067020 A1) teaches an alcohol level detection device capable of detecting an alcohol level of a driver using a contact sensor and an image sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661