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 on 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization that Matsu et al., alone or in combination with Chng et al. or any of the other references cited, renders Applicant's claimed disclosure obvious. Additionally, there is no motivation or incentive in Matsu et al., alone or in combination with Chng et al. or any of the other references cited, to arrive at Applicant's disclosure as claimed. It is respectfully submitted that Matsu et al., alone or in combination with Chng et al. or any of the other references cited, teaches away from Applicant's unique and innovative occupant monitoring system. Applicant's claimed disclosure recites an improved occupant monitoring system having a unique and advantageous orientation and combination of components which is more efficient, advantageous, and eliminates various negative features associated with the devices/systems disclosed in the cited references.”
Examiner notes that this argument lists multiple theories of patentability without citation to the appropriate source, evidence on the record, or specific claim language. Examiner notes that the updated reasons for rejection below provide substantive reasoning and citations that indicate that the claimed subject matter is obvious over the cited prior art.
Applicant argues: “Applicant's claimed disclosure is directed toward an improved occupant monitoring system which is capable of reducing input of a noise light to a camera during occupant imaging.”
Examiner is not clear what “claimed disclosure” refers to. Further, Applicant’s claimed solution of using a light shielding wall to prevent undesired light from shining on the camera is a well-known solution in the art. See reasons for rejection of the language in the claims below.
Applicant argues: “Specifically in this regard, amended independent Claims 1 and 6 set forth Applicant's unique and innovative arrangement and orientation of components, reciting an occupant monitoring system including, in part, "the design surface is a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle compartment."”
Examiner notes that placing the components of a driver monitoring system in an instrument panel of the vehicle falls short of an innovative arrangement. This is a well established solution in the art, and indeed there are few other location in the vehicle where such a system can be placed and still maintain a proper view of the driver.
Applicant argues: “There is no motivation or incentive in Matsu et al., alone or in combination with Chng et al. or any of the other references cited, to arrive at Applicant's disclosure as claimed. In fact, the cited references teach away from and articulate various disadvantages associated with the arrangement, configuration and orientation of components taught in Applicant's claimed disclosure.”
Examiner again notes that Applicant lists different theories of patentability without support or citation to the claims or the prior art. As noted in the reasons for rejection below, the prior art references indeed teach the claimed features.
Applicant argues: “because the design surface is a surface of an instrument panel of a vehicle compartment and a camera is configured to form a light path in which light from a light source is transmitted through the design surface to irradiate an imaging target and light reflected from the imaging target is transmitted through the design surface to be input to the camera, the claimed configuration may enable occupant face imaging while allowing the design surface to visually cover a camera unit.”
Examiner notes that the claims do not define the structure of the design surface or why it is problematic in this application. However, both the Specification and the Prior Art define a design surface as a combination of covers, lenses, and filters that can be placed in an instrument panel of a vehicle. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Further, as viewed in an orthogonal direction, the design surface completely covers the camera and the light source … As such, Applicant's unique and innovative configuration may contribute to packaging flexibility and stable optical spacing.”
Examiner notes that this argument is neither directed to a claimed limitation nor provides language that can be used as a proper claim limitation on an apparatus. Prior Art teaches the claimed solution in exactly the claimed limitation.
Examiner suggests elaborating on the materials that make the design surface more problematic than the reflective surfaces described in the prior art.
Applicant argues: “Structural Difference regarding "Completely Covers" vs. "Protruding Lens" Amended independent Claims 1 and 6 of Applicant's claimed disclosure recite that the design surface (of the instrument panel) "completely covers the camera and the light source."”
Examiner notes that the claimed “surface” is not a single structure or a material. Specification Figs. 2-3 and Claim 12 describe this element as comprising different structures such as windows, filters, and panels. Prior art teaches substantively identical embodiments as noted in the reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “In stark contrast, Chng et al. teaches a camera module specifically designed with a fisheye lens (wide-angle lens). Chng et al. explicitly describes and illustrates that "a portion of the fisheye lens 420 protrudes through the opening 414" of the front cover. See Chng et al. at paragraph [0101] and FIG. 4A (reproduced below). Applicant respectfully submits that this protrusion appears to be essential for Chng et al.'s purpose of providing a wide field of view (e.g., 180 degrees). If one were to modify Chng et al. to "completely cover" the lens with the front cover as claimed/recited …”
Examiner notes that the claims and the specification do not preclude protrusions, do not require lenses to be covered, and Specification Figs. 2-3 indicate that the design surface is made up of different elements and materials just as the cited portions of the prior art.
Applicant argues: “"Instrument Panel" Arrangement vs. Steering Wheel Mounting Amended independent Claims 1 and 6 of Applicant's claimed disclosure recite that the design surface is a surface of an instrument panel. Applicant's claimed disclosure addresses the specific problem of "noise light" (internal reflection) occurring when a camera is recessed behind an instrument panel surface with a gap therebetween. Matsu et al., serving as the primary reference, discloses a Driver Monitoring System (OMS) mounted on a steering wheel. … Matsu et al. does not appear to disclose, teach or suggest embedding a camera and a light source deeply inside an instrument panel”
Examiner notes that Matsu also teaches placing the DMS in an instrument panel. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “It is respecttfully submitted that in view of Applicant's arguments stated above and previously, Matsu et al. is an improper primary reference, Chng et al. is an improper secondary reference, and Applicant's claims are patentably distinct with respect thereto, as well as no teaching in existence to suggest the combination of any of the cited references. … In the Office Action, the Examiner's conclusory statements are insufficient to establish a prima facie rejection because no articulated reasoning with rational underpinning was given, and no explanation as to exactly how the combination or modification could have been made was provided. As a result, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has failed to identify any motivation by one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the art to arrive at the claimed disclosure other than the impermissible use of hindsight.”
Examiner notes that this argument lists different theories for patentability without explanation or application to the specific reasons for rejection of the claim language. This is not persuasive.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Component arrangements or rearrangements which do not modify operation of the device cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (shifting the position of the starting switch was not patentable because it would not have modified the operation of the device.
Where the claim language is directed to selection or arrangement of components known in the art and used in a known manner, the claim language can be elective (obvious) rather than inventive. Examiner must consider objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). For example, where Specification does not indicate that the claimed arrangement solves a particular problem in the art or produces objectively unexpected results, the arrangement is elective and thus obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11267499 to Matsu (“Matsu”) in view of US 20220116517 to Chng (“Chng”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An occupant monitoring system comprising,
a camera unit provided in a vehicle compartment and configured to capture an image of a face of an occupant in a vehicle as an imaging target, wherein the camera unit includes a camera (“such that a camera can detect the driver's face and eyes.” Matsu, Column 2, lines 66-67. See similarly in Chng, Paragraphs 103-104, 108 and Figs. 4A - 5. Note that the camera can be one of the components inside a driver monitoring system or dashboard. Column 2, lines 39-61.)
and a light source on a substrate, (“The light bar assembly may facilitate illumination of a driver's face with infrared (IR) light from IR light emitting diodes (LEDs) such that a camera can detect the driver's face and eyes.” Matsu, Column 2, lines 64-67. In this case, the substrate may be embodied as a PCB: “The PCB assembly 130 can include a PCB bar 139,” Matsu, Column 4, lines 60-61. See similarly in Chng, Paragraphs 103-104, 108, 115 and Figs. 4A - 5.)
the camera unit includes a path prevention structure configured to prevent light from entering the camera through a path other than the light path.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a path prevention structure can be a light shield or a slit. See Specification, Paragraph 13 and original Claims 2 and 6. Prior art teaches embodiments of this: “A lens housing 136 may be coupled to the PCB bar 139. The lens housing 136 can be formed of any suitable material that is IR light transmissive and visible light non-transmissive,” thus preventing the visible light from entering the camera directly from the light source. See Matsu, Column 6, lines 3-7. In another embodiment, “the lens 134 is disposed within the slit 105 and directed vehicle-rearward toward a driver … to prevent visible light transmitted by the visible LEDs 172 from leaking around the lens 134 while allowing passage of the visible light through the lens 134.” See Matsu, Column 6, lines 60-62. See similarly in Chng, Paragraph 115 and Figs. 4A - 5.)
Matsu does not explicitly teach: “the camera is configured to form a light path in which light from the light source is transmitted through a design surface to irradiate the imaging target and light reflected from the imaging target is transmitted through the design surface to be input to the camera.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the design surface can be the surface of a cover or a composite cover of the camera unit with a portion acting as a lens for the camera. See Specification, Paragraphs 9, 23 and a composite design surface 15 with a lens cover portion 13 in Figs. 1-2.
Matsu separately teaches that a driver monitoring system can contain a light bar and a camera and that the light bar can have a lens in Column 2, lines 39-61, however Matsu does not explicitly teach that there is a single lens / surface for the light source and the camera.
` Chng teaches the above claim feature in the context of camera assembly and cameras used in automobiles: As illustrated in Chng, Fig. 4A (below), the “design surface” that performs the claimed function comprises the optical covers 404, 410 that cover the camera system and the lens portion 420 that covers the camera. “The main body 406 is attached on one side to the front cover 404 and … the main body 406 supports the fisheye lens 420. … An image sensor 450 is mounted on PCB 428” Chng, Paragraphs 103-104, 108, and Figs. 4A, 4B, 5. This corresponds to the example in the Specification Figs. 1-2 of a design surface 15 which covers the camera system and embodies a lens portion 13 that covers the camera.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Matsu to implement the design surface as claimed above as a front cover taught in Chng, in order to house all the camera unit components in the same housing. See, Chng, Paragraphs 100-101.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
“the camera and the light source do not contact with the design surface, and (“An image sensor 450 is mounted on PCB 428 (a substrate) … The image sensor 450 is optically coupled to the fisheye lens 420 so as to capture still and/or video images of the field of view provided by the fisheye lens 420” Chng, Paragraphs 108-109, 100-101, and Fig. 4A. Here, the imager 450 (embodying a camera) and the light sources 430, 432 (embodying light sources) are not in a physical contact with the front covers 404 and 410 and the lens 420 (embodying the design surface). See statement of motivation above.)
the design surface is arranged on the light path between an incident surface of the camera for the reflected light and the imaging target.” “The image sensor 450 is optically coupled to the fisheye lens 420 so as to capture still and/or video images of the field of view provided by the fisheye lens 420” Chng, Paragraphs 108-109, 100-101, and Fig. 4A. This corresponds to the example in the Specification Figs. 1-2 of a lens portion 13 that covers the camera. See statement of motivation above.)
the path prevention structure includes a light shielding wall that extends from the substrate to the design surface and partitions between the camera and the light source to be separated from each other by the light shielding wall.” (See use of light blocking walls in Matsu, Column 6, lines 3-7. Similarly, Chng provides a light shielding wall as “an opaque ring 422 is also disposed within the opening 414 so as to surround the fisheye lens 420 within the opening 414. The opaque ring 422 is made of a material ( e.g., a metal) that is opaque to visible and near infrared wavelengths of light. … the opaque ring 422 can include a light shield 460 that surrounds the fisheye lens 420 over an axial length that extends at least part of the way to PCB 426. The light shield 460 can be coupled to the fisheye lens 420 via a light-tight seal 462 (e.g., an O-ring). In this way, the light shield 460 provides an opaque barrier between the front cover 404, LEDs 430-436, and cover lenses 431-437 and the fisheye lens 420.” Chng, Paragraphs 101, 115 and Figs. 4A - 5. Note that Chng indicates that the light shield extend from the surface (such as the surface defined by the lens 420 and covers 404 and 410) at least part of the way to PCB (embodying the substrate), which covers the range of embodiments that would extend all the way to the substrate. See statement of motivation above.)
the design surface is a surface of an instrument panel of the vehicle compartment, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, an instrument panel of the vehicle compartment is a complex assembly of components that may include displays and processors and multiple surfaces. Note that Chang teaches: “A camera module can be used as part of an internal vision system of a vehicle that can obtain images of the driver and/or passengers inside the vehicle,” and thus a driver monitoring system. Chng, Paragraph 24. Further, “Driver monitoring systems (DMS) … DMS have been mounted at various locations within a vehicle, including, but not limited to, the steering wheel, the dashboard and/or instrument panel. … may apply to other types of driver monitoring systems installed at other locations within a vehicle.” Matsu, Column 2, lines 39-48. Thus, if a design surface of a driver monitoring system, as exemplified above, is incorporated into an instrument panel, it is one of the surfaces of the instrument panel. See statement of motivation above.)
the design surface is spaced apart from the camera and the light source in a direction orthogonal to a direction in which the camera and the light source are arranged in a row, (For example, in Chng, Fig. 4A (shown above), the horizontal surfaces of the covers 404 and 410 as well as other surface elements are spaced vertically apart from the horizontal arrangements of the lighting elements 430, 432, and the cameras 450. Also, as noted above, the substrate may use a combination of PCBs or the same PCB for mounting the camera and the light sources.)
as viewed in the orthogonal direction, the design surface completely covers the camera and the light source, (As illustrated in Chng, Fig. 4A (above), the “design surface” that performs the claimed function comprises the optical covers 404, 410 (and optional elements 422 and 460) that cover the camera system and the lens portion 420 that covers the camera, which together form the design surface of the devices that covers the camera and the light sources completely. Chng, Paragraphs 103-104, 108, and Figs. 4A, 4B, 5. This corresponds to the example in the Specification Figs. 1-2 of a design surface 15 which covers the camera system and embodies distinct lens portion 13 that covers the camera.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the path prevention structure includes a non-reflective part arranged around the camera.” (“To block such direct or indirect paths, the opaque ring 422 can include a light shield 460 that surrounds the fisheye lens 420 over an axial length that extends at least part of the way to PCB 426.” Chng, Paragraph 115 and Figs. 4A - 5. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 4, wherein the non-reflective part is a black non-reflective sheet and is provided between a front of the camera and the design surface.” (“In this way, the light shield 460 provides an opaque barrier between the front cover 404 [design surface], … and the fisheye lens 420.” Chng, Paragraph 115 and Figs. 4A - 5. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 6, “An occupant monitoring system,” is rejected for reasons stated in Claims 1, 2, and 4.
Regarding Claim 7: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1,
wherein the substrate is arranged at an inclination with respect to the design surface, (As illustrated in Chng Fig. 4A, the substrate embodied in PCBs 428 (for the camera) and 426 (for the light sources) can indeed be at an inclination with respect to parts of the covers 404 and 410 (design surface) which angle toward the edges of the system. The covers are transparent, and the inclination in the Specification and in Chng does not appear to affect the optical performance of the system and appears to be applied for packaging or appearance of the system. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and the light shielding wall is arranged along a normal vector of the substrate.” (Similarly, as illustrated in Chng Fig. 4A, the substrates embodied in PCBs 428 and 426 can indeed be at a normal angle with respect to portions of the light shielding elements 460 and 422. The portions along the normal angle appear to be desirable for blocking undesired light from the light sources and stray reflections. See Chng, Paragraph 116. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 7, wherein an optical axis of the camera and an optical axis of the light source are arranged at an inclination with respect to the design surface.” (As illustrated in Chng Fig. 4A, the substrate embodied in PCBs 428 (for the camera) and 426 (for the light sources) can indeed be at an inclination with respect to parts of the covers 404 and 410 (design surface) which angle toward the edges of the system. The covers are transparent, and the inclination in the Specification and in Chng does not appear to affect the optical performance of the system and appears to be applied for packaging or appearance of the system. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 8, … wherein the camera is placed on a side of the light shielding wall where a gap between the substrate and the design surface is narrower, and … the light source is placed on an other side of the light shielding wall where the gap between the substrate and the design surface is wider.” (This claim is directed to a relative arrangement of components that does not modify operation of the optical and electrical camera system with respect to its optical or electrical properties. Specification Figs. 1-3 appear to indicate that the inclination of the design surface (a transparent cover) is made for purposes of aesthetic appearance when the camera system is used in a car dash board rather than for purposes of modifying the optical or the electric function of the camera system. Specification Fig. 2 appears to indicate (through symmetry) that the shield wall 7 would protect the camera and the light source from reflections from the transparent cover 15 in the same manner, regardless of the inclination of the transparent cover. Similarly, in Fig. 4A, the light elements 431 and 432 appear to have a bigger gap between the cover elements 404 and 410 than the gap between the imager 450 and its cover element 420; this also does not appear to be material to the device functionality, since the distance of the transparent protective covers does not appear to affect the optical performance of the light sources or the optical shield elements.
Since the light elements of the prior art (and the specification) can be either closer or further from the transparent cover elements than the imager without materially affecting the electrical and optical operation of the camera system, the claimed arrangement is obvious over the prior art. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim10: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
the light source and the camera are located on a vehicle front side of the instrument panel, and (Note that specification does not describe “front side of the instrument panel.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the light source and the camera of the DMS is facing and visible from the front side of the vehicle in order to be able to view and monitor the driver. See Specification, Paragraph 16.
Prior art teaches: See “Driver monitoring systems (DMS) … including, but not limited to, the steering wheel, the dashboard and/or instrument panel” in Mastu Column 2, lines 39-48 and Fig. 1 with the system location sufficiently in the front to illuminate and monitor the driver, where “the principles discussed may apply to other types of driver monitoring systems installed at other locations within a vehicle”. Similarly, “A camera module can be used as part of an internal vision system of a vehicle that can obtain images of the driver” Chng, Paragraph 24. It is an inherent or an implicit feature of a driver monitoring system that it monitors the driver and thus located in a part of the instrument panel that is visible from the front.)
the light source and the camera are arranged at positions offset vertically and horizontally with respect to a steering wheel of the vehicle as viewed from a driver's seat.” (See “Driver monitoring systems (DMS) … including, but not limited to, the steering wheel, the dashboard and/or instrument panel” in Mastu Column 2, lines 39-48 and Fig. 1 with the system location offset to one side of the steering wheel, where “the principles discussed may apply to other types of driver monitoring systems installed at other locations within a vehicle”. Similarly, “A camera module can be used as part of an internal vision system of a vehicle that can obtain images of the driver” Chng, Paragraph 24. Thus it appears obvious to arrange the DMS system inside the vehicle with some offset with respect to the steering wheel which is necessarily a visual obstacle.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
an optical axis of the camera and an optical axis of the light source are arranged at an inclination with respect to the design surface, (As illustrated in Chng Fig. 4A, the substrate embodied in PCBs 428 (for the camera) and 426 (for the light sources) can indeed be at an inclination with respect to parts of the covers 404 and 410 (design surface) which angle toward the edges of the system and with respect to the sloped surfaces of the lens 420 (design surface). Similarly the lens 134 (design surface) in Matsu is curved and thus comprises different angles with respect to the cameras and the various light sources. The covers are transparent, and the inclination in the Specification, in Matsu and in Chng appear to be directed to fitting the components inside a vehicle and does not appear to affect the optical performance of the system and appears to be applied for packaging or appearance of the system. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and intersect with the driver's seat.” (See “Driver monitoring systems (DMS)” in Mastu Column 2, lines 39-45 and Fig. 1 with the light direction of the DMS directed toward the driver’s seat. Similarly, “A camera module can be used as part of an internal vision system of a vehicle that can obtain images of the driver” Chng, Paragraph 24.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein the light shielding wall is configured to stop light from the light source, which is reflected by an inner surface of the design surface, from reaching the camera.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a light shielding wall can achieve the intended result in the claim if it prevents reflection of the light from the light source by either blocking the undesired light from the light source entirely, by blocking the undesired illumination angles from the light source, by blocking the undesired reflection angles from a cover / design surface, or entirely blocking reflection of the undesired light from the cover.
As noted in Claim 1, Matsu teaches using light blocking “walls” of the lens housing to block undesired illumination angles and reflections toward the camera in Column 6, lines 3-7 and “a light shield that prevents visible light from passing between the lens 134 and the first and second edge portions” in Column 7, lines 1-4 as the appropriate structure to prevent undesired light from the light source from illuminating the environment that includes the camera.
With respect to blocking internally reflected light on the camera, Chng provides a light shielding wall as “an opaque ring 422 is also disposed within the opening 414 so as to surround the fisheye lens 420 within the opening 414. The opaque ring 422 is made of a material ( e.g., a metal) that is opaque to visible and near infrared wavelengths of light. … the opaque ring 422 can include a light shield 460 that surrounds the fisheye lens 420 over an axial length that extends at least part of the way to PCB 426. The light shield 460 can be coupled to the fisheye lens 420 via a light-tight seal 462 (e.g., an O-ring). In this way, the light shield 460 provides an opaque barrier between the front cover [design surface] 404, LEDs 430-436, and cover lenses 431-437 and the fisheye lens 420 [of the camera].” Chng, Paragraphs 101, 115 and Figs. 4A - 5. Thus all of these solutions would have been known in the art. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11267499 to Matsu (“Matsu”) in view of US 20220116517 to Chng (“Chng”) in view of US 20200166749 to Saito (“Saito”).
Regarding Claim 12: “The occupant monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein
the design surface includes a monitor window portion provided in the instrument panel, and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the monitor window can be located on another part of the dashboard / instrument panel. See Specification, Paragraph 16 and Fig. 5. Prior art teaches: “vehicle dash-board display) … DMS have been mounted at various locations within a vehicle, including, but not limited to, the steering wheel, the dashboard and/or instrument panel” Matsu, Column 2, lines 29-43. See similarly in Chng, Paragraph 53. Thus the display and the DMS can be part of the same dashboard and thus share the same composite dashboard surface, complete with lenses, panels, and other materials forming the dashboard “design” surface.)
an infrared filter is arranged in the monitor window portion, and (For example, “The front cover 404 is made of a material ( e.g., a plastic material) that is transparent to near infrared light but is opaque to visible light.” Chng, Paragraph 100.
Chng does not teach applying the filter to the monitor window portion.
Saito teaches this feature in the context of automotive displays in an instrument panel: “a liquid crystal panel disposed inside an instrument panel situated in the car interior … a vehicle head-up display in which a filter is provided in front of a liquid crystal panel, to block infrared light striking the liquid crystal panel” Saito, Paragraph 2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Matsu and Chng to use an infrared filter arranged in the monitor window portion, as taught in Saito, in order to “to reduce the effects of thermal energy from infrared radiation (infrared light) included in outside light (sunlight) upon liquid crystal panels.”. Saito, Paragraph 2.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
the light path is transmitted through the monitor window portion.” (Claim 1 describes “a light path in which light from the light source is transmitted … through a design surface to irradiate the imaging target and light reflected from the imaging target.” This element thus indicates that the monitor window can receive light from the light source either directly or reflected from another object or structure. One way the reflection light path can be accomplished if both the driver monitoring system and the monitor window are facing the same direction such as both elements being part of the same dashboard and being directed at the driver as in Specification, Figs. 2-3. Matsu teaches the same structural arrangement where the DMS (camera and illumination) and the display are both directed at the driver and can indeed be part of the same dashboard. See Mastu, Column 2, lines 27-47.)
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights