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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges no foreign priority is claimed.
The instant application is CIP of 17/033,801, which is CIP of 16/983,004, which is CON of 16/282,650, which is PRO of 62/689,260 (filed 6/25/2018) and 62/633,676 (filed 2/22/2018).
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner acknowledges no information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates “a vehicle cabin monitoring system (paragraph 97: the use of two or more imagers for monitoring the interior of a vehicle) comprising:
a radar unit (paragraph 747: to provide an occupant sensor which determines whether any occupants of the vehicle are moving using radar systems, e.g., micropower impulse radar (MIR),) To provide an occupant sensor which determines whether any occupants of the vehicle are moving using radar systems, e.g., micropower impulse radar (MIR)), comprising:
at least one transmitter antenna connected to an oscillator and least one transmitter configured to transmit electromagnetic waves into the vehicle cabin (paragraph 2999: as shown in FIG. 167, the aperture monitoring system 780 in accordance with the invention includes a wave emitter 781, e.g., an electromagnetic wave emitter; paragraph 2044: A 48 MHz signal, f1, is generated by a crystal oscillator 81 and fed into a frequency tripler 82 which produces an output signal at 144 MHz), and
at least one receiver antenna configured to receive electromagnetic waves reflected by objects within the vehicle cabin and operable to generate raw data (paragraph 2999: a receiver 783 which receives waves reflected by an edge of a frame defining an aperture 782 when no obstruction is present or from an obstruction in the aperture when present, and a phase change measurement system 784);
at least one beam deflection device configured to direct the electromagnetic waves transmitted by the at least one transmitter antenna towards at least by one obstructed region within the vehicle cabin and cabin and further configured to direct the electromagnetic waves reflected by objects within the obstructed region towards the at least on receiver antenna (paragraph 3001: In operation, the emitter 781 continuously or periodically emits waves over the aperture 782, again in possible dependence on satisfaction of a condition which would indicate the possibility of an obstruction in the aperture or operation of the door or window etc. ...the receiver 783 receives a reflection of waves and enables the phase change measurement system 784 to determine the phase change between the emitted modulated waves and the received waves…this phase change is compared to the stored phase change in order to determine whether the aperture 782 is obstructed).”
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the at least one beam deflection device comprises an outbound radio beam generator comprising a radio wave deflector operable to redirect incoming radio waves into an outbound radio beam (paragraph 112: the use of shaped horns, grills and reflectors for the output of the transducers to precisely control the beam pattern and thereby minimizing false echoes).”
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the at least one beam deflection device is selected from at least one of a group consisting of: a reflector, a refractor, a dielectric lens, a grating, a reflectarray and combinations thereof (paragraph 112: the use of shaped horns, grills and reflectors for the output of the transducers to precisely control the beam pattern and thereby minimizing false echoes).”
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the at least one beam deflection device is incorporated into a ceiling section of the vehicle cabin selected from a group consisting of a sunroof, a headliner, a roofing beam, a vehicle pillar, a roll bar and combinations thereof (paragraph 966: he image may be changed by adjusting the lens, e.g., adjusting the focal length of the lens and/or the position of the lens relative to the array, by adjusting the array, e.g., the position of the array relative to the lens, and/or by using software to perform a focusing process…the array may be arranged in several advantageous locations on the vehicle, e.g., on an A-pillar of the vehicle, above a top surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle and on an instrument panel of the vehicle and oriented to receive an image reflected by a windshield of the vehicle; paragraph 1570: the sensor system 6 is mounted on the A-Pillar of the vehicle…the sensor system 9 is mounted on the upper portion of the B-Pillar…the sensor system 8 is mounted on the roof ceiling portion or the headliner).”
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the at least one beam deflection device is incorporated into at least one of: a windshield of the vehicle, a rearview mirror of the vehicle, and a pillar of the vehicle (paragraph 966: he image may be changed by adjusting the lens, e.g., adjusting the focal length of the lens and/or the position of the lens relative to the array, by adjusting the array, e.g., the position of the array relative to the lens, and/or by using software to perform a focusing process…the array may be arranged in several advantageous locations on the vehicle, e.g., on an A-pillar of the vehicle, above a top surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle and on an instrument panel of the vehicle and oriented to receive an image reflected by a windshield of the vehicle).”
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the at least one beam deflection device further comprises a modulator operable to modulate incoming radio wave signals (paragraph 1127: a system for detecting the presence of an object in an aperture in accordance with the invention comprises an electromagnetic wave emitting device for emitting modulated electromagnetic waves and directing the modulated electromagnetic waves from at least one edge of a frame defining the aperture, a receiver device for receiving reflected electromagnetic waves and a device for measuring a phase change between the modulated electromagnetic waves and the reflected electromagnetic waves).”
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the modulator comprises a temporal modulator operable to adjust reflectivity over time (paragraph 1605: An improvement would be to polarize the radiation and use a reflector that rotates the polarization angle allowing the reflector to be more easily found among other reflecting objects; paragraph 1616: based on the training data from the reflected waves of the ultrasonic sensor systems 6, 8, 9, 10 and the other sensors 7, 71, 73,76, 78 the vector data is collected (step S3). Next, the reflected waves P1-P4 are modified by removing the initial reflected waves from each time window with a short reflection time from an object (range gating) (period T1 in FIG. 11) and the last portion of the reflected waves from each time window with a long reflection time from an object (period P2 in FIG. 11) (step S4). It is believed that the reflected waves with a short reflection time from an object is due to cross-talk, that is, waves from the transmitters which leak into each of their associated receivers ChA-ChD. It is also believed that the reflected waves with a long reflection time are reflected waves from an object far away from the passenger seat or from multipath reflections).”
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the modulator comprises a temporal modulator operable to adjust gain over time according to a gain function (paragraph 1641: The function of stage U2 is to vary the gain of the amplifier with time to compensate for the signal attenuation with distance (time) of the echo reflected from various surfaces).”
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “the modulator comprises a temporal modulator operable to adjust beam-phase over time according to a phase adjustment function (paragraph 2989: a lens receives the reflected electromagnetic waves from the illuminated window frame, for example, and since the electromagnetic waves have been modulated with a frequency having a wavelength of something like two feet, the distance to the reflected surface on a pixel-by-pixel basis for each pixel can be determined…this can be done by any manner known to one skilled in the art…usually, a processor is employed with an appropriate measurement ability or unit to calculate the distance between the electromagnetic wave emitter/receptor and the obstacle based on the time between the transmission and reception of the electromagnetic waves. Since a phase change can also be determined when the installation is made, which will serve as the reference phase change, if any object penetrates the plane of electromagnetic waves created by the focused LED or laser diode, one or more pixels will register a change in phase (which would be different than the reference phase change) and therefore a change in distance to the reflecting object; paragraph 3024: sine wave modulated carrier wave is emitted or transmitted and the phase of the modulation measured. In the alternative, it is contemplated that a square wave or pulse modulation can be used with a code (such as 10011101011000) and as long as the code is unique, the time of flight can be determined by comparing the coded signal that was sent to that which is received and determining the delay. Either individual pulses can be sent or the carrier wave can have its amplitude--or phase--modulated).”
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) further anticipates “further comprises a reflectivity modulation unit configured to adjust the reflectivity of the outbound radio beam generator so as to encode information therein (paragraph 218: Although a simple frequency modulation scheme has been disclosed so far, it is also possible to use other coding techniques including the coding of the illumination with one of a variety of correlation patterns including a pseudo-random code. Similarly, although frequency and code domain systems have been described; paragraph 672: to utilize a correlation pattern modulation in a form of code division modulation for determining the distance of an object interior and/or exterior of a vehicle).”
Regarding independent claim 16, which is a corresponding method claim of independent system claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Shollenberger (US 2018/0006760 A1).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “the at least one beam deflection device has a time-varying reflectivity.”
Shollenberger (‘760) relates to radar monitoring device. Shollenberger (‘760) teaches “the at least one beam deflection device has a time-varying reflectivity (paragraph 45: the emissions 126A-G can vary in reflectivity and/or emissivity from one another…the set of data 128A-G can be indicative of a reflectivity and/or emissivity associated at which a respective emission 126A-G is to be generated by the platform 102A-G…the reflectivity and/or emissivity associated with emission of a platform can be different than one or more reflectivity and/or emissivity associated with the emissions of other platforms…a location/time sequence of varying reflectivity and/or emissivity can be employed).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Shollenberger (‘760) to provide further deception of the observation devices (Shollenberger (‘760) – paragraph 45). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Shollenberger (‘760)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, radar used in vehicle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Josefsson et al. (US 2006/0164281 A1).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a switched impedance.”
Josefsson et al. (‘281) relates to antennas for radar systems. Josefsson et al. (‘281) teaches “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a switched impedance (claim 4: creating the inner tuning device by the use of a switched impedance arrangement (10) being appropriately switched to fully or partly conducting during respective phases of operation and a proper part of the impedance arrangement being non-conducting during the rest of the time).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Josefsson et al. (‘281) for more reliable radar deteciton (Josefsson et al. (‘281) – paragraph 9). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Josefsson et al. (‘281)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using antenna arrangement relating reflectivity for radar detection.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Breed (US 9,290,146 B2).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a controlled dielectric material.”
Breed (‘146) relates to radar monitoring system. Breed (‘146) teaches “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a controlled dielectric material (column 9 line 66- column 10 line 17: wave-type sensors as the transducers 6, 8, 10 as well as electric field sensors 12, 14, 16 are mentioned above…electric field sensors and wave sensors are essentially the same from the point of view of sensing the presence of an occupant in a vehicle. In both cases, a time varying electric field is disturbed or modified by the presence of the occupant…at high frequencies in the visual, infrared and high frequency radio wave region, the sensor is based on its capability to sense a change of wave characteristics of the electromagnetic field, such as amplitude, phase or frequency…as the frequency drops, other characteristics of the field are measured…at still lower frequencies, the occupant's dielectric properties modify parameters of the reactive electric field in the occupied space between or near the plates of a capacitor).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Breed (‘146) for improved monitoring of interior spaces of vehicles (Breed (‘146) – column 1 lines 62-64). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Breed (‘146)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, monitoring interior spaces in vehicles.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Breed (US 8,786,437 B2).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a movable element.”
Breed (437) relates to monitoring system. Breed (437) teaches “the at least one beam deflection device comprises a movable element (column 23 lines 39-42: an improvement would be to polarize the radiation and use a reflector that rotates the polarization angle allowing the reflector to be more easily found among other reflecting objects).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Breed (437) for more reliable monitoring (Breed (437) – column 23 lines 38-42). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Breed (437)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, vehicle radar system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Naghizadesh et al. (US 10,730, 465 B2).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the vehicle cabin monitoring system of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “the at least one beam deflection device is incorporated into a head restraint.”
Naghizadesh et al. (‘465) relates to monitoring system. Naghizadesh et al. (‘465) teaches “the at least one beam deflection device is incorporated into a head restraint (column 4 lines 54-64: applying a reflective pattern surface (219) on a seat head-rest surface and being able to determine the seat angle based on a position and reflected light intensity pattern for any possible mechanical degree of freedom for the seat (240)).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Breed (437) for more reliable monitoring (Naghizadesh et al. (‘465) – column 1 lines 61-63). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Naghizadesh et al. (‘465)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, vehicle radar system.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. (US 2006/0208169 A1), and further in view of Chayat et al. (US 2019/0254544 A1).
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 16, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the method of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “providing a processor unit configured to receive raw data from the radar unit and operable to generate image data based upon the received data; providing a memory unit configured and operable to store the image data; and providing at least one output unit; and generating a set of complex values associated with voxels within the vehicle cabin including the obstructed region.”
Chayat et al. (‘544) relates to vehicle monitoring system. Chayat et al. (‘544) teaches “providing a processor unit configured to receive raw data from the radar unit and operable to generate image data based upon the received data; providing a memory unit configured and operable to store the image data; and providing at least one output unit; and generating a set of complex values associated with voxels within the vehicle cabin including the obstructed region (paragraph 65: FIG. 4a is a flowchart elaborating the radar signal processing step from FIG. 2 (step 30)…in step 31a a 3D image is produced from the set of complex phasors describing the received signal…the image space representation is conceptually summarized as a data block 32a containing an image matrix S=[Sv,t] with a voxel set V whose elements spatially conform to a system of coordinates…the particular system of coordinates for the voxel set can be chosen according to what is most convenient. Common choices include Cartesian coordinates (vx,y,z) and polar coordinates (vr,θ,φ), but any other coordinate system is equally usable…each voxel is associated with a single value).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Chayat et al. (‘544) improved monitoring of vehicle interion (Chayat et al. (‘544) – paragraph 111). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Chayat et al. (‘544)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, use of radar for monitoring the interior of a vehicle to obtain information relating to the contents or occupying objects of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 17, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the method of claim 1. Breed et al. (‘169) does not explicitly disclose “converting the set of complex values into a 3D complex image; filtering the 3D images by removing contribution of at least one of sidelobes, multipath, thermal noise and clutter; detecting occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin.”
Chayat et al. (‘544) relates to vehicle monitoring system. Chayat et al. (‘544) teaches “converting the set of complex values into a 3D complex image (paragraph 65: FIG. 4a is a flowchart elaborating the RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 30) in an embodiment of the invention. In step 31a a 3D image is produced from the set pf complex phasors describing the received signal. The image space representation is conceptually summarized as a data block 32a containing an image matrix S=[Sv,t] with a voxel set V whose elements spatially conform to a system of coordinates;
filtering the 3D images by removing contribution of at least one of sidelobes, multipath, thermal noise and clutter (paragraph 90: FIG. 8e shows a screenshot of a user interface, used as an output of the system…on the left side is an image produced by filtering and then recombining the spatial patterns shown in FIG. 8b, 8c, 8d…on the right side is a graphical summarization of the occupancy state reported by the system, correctly identifying the two adults and the infant in the correct positions…the classification of passengers into adults and infants is done by examining the spatial pattern for each detected element;
paragraph 66: in step 33a the value associated with each voxel at the current frame (Sv,t) is used together with the value associated with the same voxel at the previous frame (Sv,t−1), to obtain a robust estimate of the radial displacement between the two frames using the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
48
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where λ and ϵ are real scalar parameters that are selected to minimize the effects of noise on the final value);
detecting occupancy of seats within the vehicle cabin. (Figure 8e).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle cabin monitoring system of Breed et al. (‘169) with the teaching of Chayat et al. (‘544) improved monitoring of vehicle interion (Chayat et al. (‘544) – paragraph 111). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Breed et al. (‘169) and Chayat et al. (‘544)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, use of radar for monitoring the interior of a vehicle to obtain information relating to the contents or occupying objects of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on claim 18, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the method of claim 18. Breed et al. (‘169) further discloses “categorizing at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (paragraph 282: In a laser optical system, an infrared laser beam is used to momentarily illuminate an object, occupant or child seat in the manner as described…a CCD or a CMOS device is used to receive the reflected light. In other cases, when a scanning laser is used, a pin or avalanche diode or another photo detector can be used…the laser can either be used in a scanning mode, or, through the use of a lens, a cone of light, swept line of light, or a pattern or structured light can be created which covers a large portion of the object.);
detecting a posture of at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (paragraph 250: Automotive vehicles are equipped with seat belts and air bags as equipment for ensuring the safety of the passenger. In recent years, an effort has been underway to enhance the performance of the seat belt and/or the air bag by controlling these devices in accordance with the weight or the posture of the passenger); and
determining a seatbelt status for at least one occupant of a seat within the vehicle cabin (paragraph 2867: ultrasonic transducers 8 and 9 transmit bursts of ultrasonic waves that travel to the occupant where they are reflected back to transducers or receptors/receivers 8 and 9…the time period required for the waves to travel from the generator and return is used to determine the distance from the occupant to the airbag….and thus may also be used to determine the position or location of the occupant…an optical imager based system would also be appropriate. In the invention, however, the portion of the return signal that represents the occupants' head or chest, has been determined based on pattern recognition techniques such as a neural network…the relative velocity of the occupant toward the airbag can then be determined, by Doppler principles or from successive position measurements, which permits a sufficiently accurate prediction of the time when the occupant would become proximate to the airbag. By comparing the occupant relative velocity to the integral of the crash deceleration pulse, a determination as to whether the occupant is being restrained by a seatbelt can also be made which then can affect the airbag deployment initiation decision. Alternately, the mere knowledge that the occupant has moved a distance that would not be possible if he were wearing a seatbelt gives information that he is not wearing one).”
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on claim 18, Breed et al. (‘169) discloses the method of claim 18. Breed et al. (‘169) further discloses “the output unit cancelling air bag operation if unsafe (paragraph 2867: ultrasonic transducers 8 and 9 transmit bursts of ultrasonic waves that travel to the occupant where they are reflected back to transducers or receptors/receivers 8 and 9. The time period required for the waves to travel from the generator and return is used to determine the distance from the occupant to the airbag…and thus may also be used to determine the position or location of the occupant…an optical imager based system would also be appropriate. In the invention, however, the portion of the return signal that represents the occupants' head or chest, has been determined based on pattern recognition techniques such as a neural network… the relative velocity of the occupant toward the airbag can then be determined, by Doppler principles or from successive position measurements, which permits a sufficiently accurate prediction of the time when the occupant would become proximate to the airbag…by comparing the occupant relative velocity to the integral of the crash deceleration pulse, a determination as to whether the occupant is being restrained by a seatbelt can also be made which then can affect the airbag deployment initiation decision. Alternately, the mere knowledge that the occupant has moved a distance that would not be possible if he were wearing a seatbelt gives information that he is not wearing one).”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwie et al. (10,493,952 B1) describes maintenance system configured to be used with a self-driving vehicle… maintenance system can comprise a smoke detection system configured to detect smoke inside a cabin of the vehicle…a communication system configured to send a first wireless communication to a remote computing device associated with a manager of the vehicle in response to the smoke detection system detecting the smoke; and/or a vehicle management system configured to autonomously drive the vehicle…a maintenance system comprises a memory having an identification of a first rider of the vehicle. The communication system can comprise an antenna, a transmitter, and/or a receiver. The communication system can be configured to send the identification of the first rider to the remote computing device of the manager in response to the smoke detection system detecting the smoke inside the vehicle (column 5 lines 40-48).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648