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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, applicant argued that prior arts fail to teach “the second average eye-opening value is an average of the first average eye-opening value and the real-time average eye-opening value” because Wang teaches how to determine the initial eye-opening threshold when the execution condition is met instead of after an execution condition has been met and the initial eye-opening threshold value has been determined, the eye-opening threshold is updated by an average of the first average eye-opening value and the real-time average eye-opening value.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite of applicant’s argument, Wang’s eye-opening threshold is dynamic (paragraph 0036), which makes Wang’s teaching fits “initial eye-opening threshold” and updated “eye-opening threshold.” Wang discloses “… the average of the effective eye-opening values is calculated and multiplied by a certain proportion (e.g., 40%), which is used as the threshold for eye-opening” (paragraph 0034), which teaches “the eye-opening threshold value is the… average eye-opening value multiplied by the ratio.” Then, Wang discloses “To exclude some abnormal detection results from the detection algorithm… such values cannot be added to the cumulative average” (paragraph 0035), which means cumulative average being “the average of the effective eye-opening values.” In furthering Wang’s dynamic eye-opening threshold, Wang’s claim does show real-time updating of the human eye opening threshold and calculating the average value of the human eye opening size over a period of time multiplied by a certain percentage as the human eye opening threshold (see updated translation on CN111784973).
In furthering Official Notice previously taken, Kwak et al. (KR101882181) is applied to show well-knowns of using cumulative average in determining open/closure state of driver’s eyes.
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
Regarding amended claim 11, applicant argued that prior arts fail to teach “in response to the average eye-opening value being less than the eye-opening threshold value, determining that the user is in an eye-closing state” based on the same reason mentioned with respect to claim 1 rejection.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, Wang does teach argued limitation, including determining eye-closing state if less than the eye-opening threshold value (paragraphs 0012, 0017, 0024, 0032).
Thus, rejection is proper and maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 10-11, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN111784973) in view of Burton (US2004/0044293) and Kwak et al. (KR101882181).
To claim 1, Wang teach a human-eye state detection device, comprising:
an image capturing device, continuously capturing a plurality of frames of facial images of a user (paragraph 0011, acquire facial video of target driver); and
a processor, determining an eye area from the plurality of frames of facial images and calculating an average eye-opening value based on the eye area; wherein the processor repeatedly updates an eye-opening threshold value based on the average eye-opening value (paragraph 0033, the eye opening threshold can be dynamically adjusted according to the driver’s eye size; paragraph 0034, the average of the effective eye-opening values is calculated and multiplied by a certain proportion, which is used as the threshold for eye-opening; wherein obviously eye opening sizes are averaged);
wherein in response to the average eye-opening value being less than the eye-opening threshold value, the processor determines that the user is in an eye-closing state (paragraph 0012, if the eye size threshold of two consecutive frames is less than the eye opening threshold, the time interval between these two frames is included in the temporary eye-closing cumulative time; wherein obviously eye opening sizes are averaged),
wherein in response to the processor determining that an execution condition has been met (paragraph 0010, vehicle real-time movement speed reaches the movement speed threshold), the processor calculates an eye-opening value from the eye area of each frame and generates the average eye-opening value by averaging the eye-opening values of a specific amount of frames at a first point of time (paragraph 0012, two consecutive frames);
wherein the average eye-opening value generated at the first point of time is a first average eye-opening value; wherein the processor multiplies the first average eye-opening value by a ratio to generate an initial eye-opening threshold value and takes the initial eye-opening threshold value as the eye-opening threshold value (paragraph 0034, the average of the effective eye-opening values is calculated and multiplied by a certain proportion).
wherein after the processor takes the initial eye-opening threshold value as the eye-opening threshold value, the processor uses an average of the eye-opening values of the specific amount of frames at a second point of time to generate a real-time average eye-opening value, thereby updating the average eye-opening value to a second average eye-opening value (paragraphs 0025-0026, continuously monitoring every two consecutive frames, wherein second point of time resides; claim 3 of Wang, real-time updating of the human eye opening threshold and calculating the average value of the human eye opening size over a period of time multiplied by a certain percentage as the human eye opening threshold);
wherein the eye-opening threshold value is the second average eye-opening value multiplied by the ratio (paragraph 0033, dynamic eye-opening threshold; paragraph 0034, the average of the effective eye-opening values is calculated and multiplied by a certain proportion, which is used as the threshold for eye-opening; wherein obviously eye opening sizes are averaged; claim 3 of Wang, real-time updating of the human eye opening threshold and calculating the average value of the human eye opening size over a period of time multiplied by a certain percentage as the human eye opening threshold);
wherein the second average eye-opening value is an average of the first average eye-opening value and the real-time average eye-opening value (paragraph 0034, since said monitoring is continuously on consecutive frames, it makes cumulative average an obvious implementation; paragraph 0035, furthers cumulative average computation).
In furthering said obviousness, Burton teach comparing mean of eye opening area to eye opening threshold (88 of Fig. 8; paragraph 0278).
Kwak teach using cumulative average to determine whether the eye is open or closed in driver monitoring application (paragraphs 0003, 0033), which correspond to Wang’s teaching on cumulative average computation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Burton and Kwak into the apparatus of Wang, in order to further implementation detail by design preference.
To claim 11, Wang, Burton and Kwak teach a human-eye state detection method adapted to a human-eye state detection device (as explained in response to claim 1 above, wherein Wang teach real-time operations in paragraphs 0015, 0027; Burton teach real-time operations in paragraphs 0120, 0352, 0384).
To claims 6 and 16, Wang, Burton and Kwak teach claims 1 and 11.
Wang, Burton and Kwak teach wherein the processor further determines whether the second average eye-opening value is less than the initial eye-opening threshold value (Wang, paragraphs 0025-0026, continuously monitoring every two consecutive frames to check whether temporary eye closure status remain); wherein in response to the second average eye-opening value being less than the initial eye-opening threshold value, the processor adjusts the average eye-opening value to the average of the first average eye-opening value and the second average eye-opening value (Wang, paragraph 0033, eye opening threshold is dynamically adjusted; paragraph 0034, since said monitoring is continuously on consecutive frames, it makes a running mean or cumulative average an obvious implementation and well-known practice in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to apply by design preference, hence Official Notice is taken).
To claims 7 and 17, Wang, Burton and Kwak teach claims 6 and 16.
Wang, Burton and Kwak teach wherein in response to the second average eye-opening value not being less than the initial eye-opening value (Wang, paragraph 0024, the eye size threshold of the current frame is greater than the eye opening threshold), the processor further determines whether the eye-opening threshold value exceeds the first average eye-opening value (Wang, paragraphs 0025-0026, continuously monitoring every two consecutive frames to check); wherein in response to the eye-opening threshold exceeding the first average eye-opening value, the processor adjusts the average eye-opening value to the average of the first average eye-opening value and the second average eye-opening value; wherein in response to the eye-opening threshold not exceeding the first average eye-opening value, the processor repeatedly updates the average eye-opening value in real-time; wherein the eye-opening threshold value varies with the average eye-opening value (Wang, paragraph 0033, eye opening threshold is dynamically adjusted; paragraphs 0034-0035, cumulative average).
To claims 10 and 20, Wang, Burton and Kwak teach claims 1 and 11.
Wang, Burton and Kwak teach wherein the processor further determines a left eye area and a right eye area from the eye area and generates the average eye-opening values and the eye-opening threshold values corresponding to the left eye area and the right eye area based on the left eye area and the right eye area respectively; wherein in response to the processor determining that the average eye-opening value of the left eye area and the average eye-opening value of the right eye area are both less than the corresponding eye-opening threshold values, the processor determines that the user is in the eye-closing state (Burton, paragraph 0015, sensors/techniques may be adapted for monitoring the left eye only or the right eye only or both eyes; paragraph 0278, mean of eye opening area; which obviously show that mean of eye opening area to be for respective eye or both eyes, as comparing to respective eye-opening threshold).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights