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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 7, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 24 recite ‘the target human face detection box’ whereby ‘a target human face detection box’ was not previously defined whereby the limitation will be construed as ‘the target face detection box’. Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 16, 19, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0078306) in view of CHO (Pub. No: US 2024-0029452).
As per Claim 1 ARTAN discloses A seat belt wearing detection method, comprising (Figs. 1-6 seatbelt 240 [Abstract]):
performing face detection on an image to be detected to obtain position information of one or more face detection boxes (Figs. 1-6 face 232 identified in area 234 [0020] image [0025] position information bounding box region of interest 236 and defined points 257-262 [0027]);
recognizing a target face detection box located in a preset seat region from the one or more face detection boxes based on the position information of the one or more face detection boxes (Figs. 1-6 within preset region of box 236 points and relative boundary landmark points recognized 250-262 [0021, 0025] [0027]);
cropping the image to be detected to obtain a target human body image (Figs. 1-6 crop out windshield [0018-0020] [0026-0028]) corresponding to the target face detection box based on position information of the target face detection box (Figs. 1-6 [0018-0020] based upon landmark and box points for the cropping [0025-0028]);
ARTAN does not disclose but CHO discloses and segmenting the target human body image to obtain a seat belt region image (Figs. 2, 4 regions 213, 210, 220 for body [0086-0089] body parts [0011-0013] [0066, 0069] segmentation [0023]); and determining whether a person corresponding to the target human body image wears a seat belt based on the seat belt region image (Figs. 1-4 controller 150 – images via camera [Abstract] [0010] S403 detect seat belt from obtained image – worn S409, not worn S408 [0094-0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and segmenting the target human body image to obtain a seat belt region image; and determining whether a person corresponding to the target human body image wears a seat belt based on the seat belt region image as taught by CHO into the system of ARTAN because of the benefit taught by CHO to expand upon the seat belt detection of ARTAN to include both an in-vehicle camera system as well as the body detection and imaging of CHO into the remote camara system with limits of face detection only as in ARTAN for determining seat belt compliance whereby ARTAN benefits by incorporating both body and facial imaging features to further ensure seat belt imaging analysis and accuracy is greatly improved.
As per Claim 2 ARTAN discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein recognizing the target face detection box located in the preset seat region from the one or more face detection boxes based on the position information of the one or more face detection boxes, includes (See said analysis for Claim 1): determining, for each face detection box in the one or more face detection boxes (Figs. 1-6 face 232 identified in area 234 [0020] image [0025] position information bounding box region of interest 236 and defined points 257-262 [0027]); between the face detection box and the preset seat region based on position information of the face detection box and position information of the preset seat region (Figs. 1-6 within preset region of box 236 points and relative boundary landmark points 250-262 [0021, 0025] [0027]); and determining the face detection box as the target face detection box (Figs. 1-6 face 232 identified in area 234 [0020] image [0025] position information bounding box region of interest 236 and defined points 257-262 [0027]); between the face detection box and the preset seat region (Figs. 1-6 within preset region of box 236 points and relative boundary landmark points 250-262 [0021, 0025] [0027])
ARTAN does not disclose but CHO discloses an overlap degree (Figs. 1-4 determination made on overlapping degree [Abstract]); in a case where the overlap degree is greater than a first overlap degree threshold (Figs. 1-4 determination made on overlapping degree [Abstract] comparing the overlapping degree with a predetermined threshold [0016] wearing a seat belt when greater than the threshold [0081-0084] [0096]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2).
As per Claim 7 ARTAN discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein cropping the image to be detected to obtain the target human body image corresponding to the target face detection box based on the position information of the target face detection box, includes (See said analysis for Claim 1):
target face detection box (Figs. 1-6 face 232 identified [0020] [0025] [0027]); human face detection box (Figs. 1-6 face 232 identified [0020] [0025] [0027]); target face detection box based on the position information of the target face detection box (Figs. 1-6 within preset region of box 236 points and relative boundary landmark points 250-262 [0021, 0025] [0027])
ARTAN does not disclose but CHO discloses determining a height and width of the target human body image corresponding to the target based on a height and width of the target (Figs. 1-7 body images [0011-0013] height of 210 and width for 211-212 [0069-0071] [0086-0089]); wherein a ratio of the height of the target human body image to the height of the target is a preset first ratio (Figs. 1-7 delta change ratios for height regions [0069-0071] [0086-0089]), and a ratio of the width of the target to the width of the target human body image is a preset second ratio (Figs. 1-7 distance ratios for width regions [0069-0071] [0086-0089]); and cropping the image to be detected to obtain the target human body image based on the height and width of the human body region image (Figs. 1-7 cropped segmented regions 213, 210, 220 for occupant regions [0011-0013] [0023] [0066, 0069] [0086-0089]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 7).
As per Claim 16 ARTAN discloses An electronic device, comprising (Fig. 6 device 600 [0053]): a processor and a memory for storing instructions executed by the processor (Fig. 6 processor 612, memory 636 [0053]); wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device (Fig. 6 processor 612, memory 636 [0053]) ARTAN in view of CHO discloses to perform the method according to claim 1 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 19 ARTAN discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored computer instructions that, when run on an electronic device, cause the electronic device (Fig. 6 device 600 processor 612, memory 636 [0053]) ARTAN in view of CHO discloses to perform the method according to claim 1 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 24 ARTAN discloses The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform (See said analysis for Claim 16): target face detection box (See said analysis for Claim 7); human face detection box (See said analysis for Claim 7); target face detection box based on the position information of the target face detection box (See said analysis for Claim 7)
ARTAN does not disclose but CHO discloses determining a height and width of the target human body image corresponding to the target based on a height and width of the target (See said analysis for Claim 7); wherein a ratio of the height of the target human body image to the height of the target is a preset first ratio, and a ratio of the width of the target to the width of the target human body image is a preset second ratio (See said analysis for Claim 7); and cropping the image to be detected to obtain the target human body image based on the height and width of the human body region image (See said analysis for Claim 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 17-18, 20-23, 25-26 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 17-18, 20-23, 25-26 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt based on the seat belt region image, includes: determining an attribute parameter of the seat belt based on the seat belt region image; the attribute parameter of the seat belt including a slope of the seat belt, and the slope of the seat belt being used to indicate an inclination of a straight line obtained after a fitting process is performed on the seat belt region image with respect to a bottom edge of the target human image; and determining the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies a preset condition; the preset condition including a first preset condition, and the first preset condition including that the slope of the seat belt is within a preset range" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 3, wherein the method further comprises: segmenting the target human body image to obtain a human body region image; wherein the attribute parameter of the seat belt further includes at least one of the following: an area of the seat belt region image, an overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the target human body image, and an overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the human body region image" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 4, wherein the preset condition further includes a second preset condition, and the second preset condition includes at least one of the following: the area of the seat belt region image exceeding a preset area threshold; the overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the target human body image being greater than or equal to a second overlap degree threshold; or the overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the human body region image being greater than or equal to a third overlap degree threshold" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 5, wherein determining the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt in the case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the preset condition, includes: determining whether the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the first preset condition; in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt does not satisfy the first preset condition, determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image does not wear the seat belt; in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the first preset condition, determining whether the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the second preset condition; in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt does not satisfy the second preset condition, determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image does not wear the seat belt; and in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the second preset condition, determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: acquiring an original image captured by an imaging device disposed inside a vehicle and whose capturing region including the preset seat region; and performing affine transformation on the original image to obtain the image to be detected, wherein the preset seat region is located in the middle of the image to be detected" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein segmenting the target human body image to obtain the seat belt region image, includes: inputting the target human body image into a seat belt wearing detection model to obtain semantic information of each pixel in the target human body image, the semantic information being used to indicate a type of an object corresponding to the pixel; and segmenting the target human body image to obtain the seat belt region image based on the semantic information of each pixel; and performing face detection on the image to be detected to obtain the position information of the one or more face detection boxes, includes: inputting image to be detected into a face detection model to obtain the position information of the one or more face detection boxes" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the electronic device further comprises an imaging device, wherein the imaging device and one of the processor and memory have a data connection therebetween, and the imaging device is used to capture an original image; the imaging device is disposed inside a vehicle, and a capturing region of the imaging device includes a preset seat region; the processor is further configured to perform affine transformation on the original image to obtain an image to be detected; the preset seat region is located in the middle of the image to be detected" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 17, wherein the imaging device is provided at least one of following locations: A-pillar of a cockpit, an instrument panel, a reading light, a center control display or a central console" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 20 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform: determining, for each face detection box in the one or more face detection boxes, an overlap degree between the face detection box and the preset seat region based on position information of the face detection box and position information of the preset seat region; and determining the face detection box as the target face detection box in a case where the overlap degree between the face detection box and the preset seat region is greater than a first overlap degree threshold" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 21 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform: determining an attribute parameter of the seat belt based on the seat belt region image; the attribute parameter of the seat belt including a slope of the seat belt; and determining the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies a preset condition; the preset condition including a first preset condition, and the first preset condition including that the slope of the seat belt is within a preset range" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 22 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to further perform: segmenting the target human body image to obtain a human body region image; wherein the attribute parameter of the seat belt further includes at least one of the following: an area of the seat belt region image, an overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the target human body image, and an overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the human body region image; and the preset condition further includes a second preset condition, and the second preset condition includes at least one of the following: the area of the seat belt region image exceeding a preset area threshold, the overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the target human body image being greater than or equal to a second overlap degree threshold, or the overlap degree between the seat belt region image and the human body region image being greater than or equal to a third overlap degree threshold" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 23 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 22, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform: determining whether the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the first preset condition; determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image does not wear the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt does not satisfy the first preset condition; determining whether the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the second preset condition in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the first preset condition; determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image does not wear the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt does not satisfy the second preset condition; and determining that the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies the second preset condition" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 25 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The electronic device according to claim 16, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to perform: segmenting the target human body image to obtain the seat belt region image, includes: inputting the target human body image into a seat belt wearing detection model to obtain semantic information of each pixel in the target human body image, the semantic information being used to indicate a type of an object corresponding to the pixel; and segmenting the target human body image to obtain the seat belt region image based on the semantic information of each pixel; and performing face detection on the image to be detected to obtain the position information of the one or more face detection boxes, includes: inputting image to be detected into a face detection model to obtain the position information of the one or more face detection boxes" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 26 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has stored computer instructions that, when run on an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform: determining an attribute parameter of the seat belt based on the seat belt region image; the attribute parameter of the seat belt including a slope of the seat belt, and the slope of the seat belt being used to indicate an inclination of a straight line obtained after a fitting process is performed on the seat belt region image with respect to a bottom edge of the target human image; and determining the person corresponding to the target human body image wears the seat belt in a case where the attribute parameter of the seat belt satisfies a preset condition; the preset condition including a first preset condition, and the first preset condition including that the slope of the seat belt is within a preset range" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record ARTAN et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0078306) for Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 17, 20-23, 25-26 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. ARTAN only discloses a seat belt wearing detection method that includes performing face detection on an image to be detected to obtain position information of one or more face detection boxes, recognizing a target face detection box located in a preset seat region from the one or more face detection boxes based on the position information of the one or more face detection boxes, and cropping the image to be detected to obtain a target human body image corresponding to the target face detection box based on position information of the target face detection box.
As per Claim 4, the claim limitations are disclosed in CHO (Pub. No: US 2024-0029452) and would otherwise be rejected but for dependency on allowable Claim 3.
As per Claim 18, the claim limitations are disclosed in CHO (Pub. No: US 2024-0029452) and would otherwise be rejected but for dependency on allowable Claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481