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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed May 11, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcia et al. (Barcia; US Patent No. 11,922,787 B1) in view of Deterding et al. (Deterding; US Pub No. 2018/0325385 A1).
As per claim 1, Barcia teaches a system for automated monitoring of a child within a vehicle, comprising:
one or more sensors positioned within a cabin of a vehicle, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to monitor a child in the cabin (col. 34, lines 27-36);
a safety categorization module configured to receive and process signals from the one or more sensors, wherein the safety categorization module is configured to continuously process data from the one or more sensors to categorize the child within one of at least three safety state categories indicative of a current safety state of the child (col. 34, lines 44-53: high, medium, low), wherein at least one safety state category of the at least three safety categories is associated with a group of multiple, distinct conditions, and wherein the at least one safety state category is assigned upon detection of any one condition within the group (col. 34, lines 35-66; col. 35, line 67 – col. 36, line 4: plurality of conditions i.e. sunburn, choking, etc., where each condition is categorized as either low, medium or high severity based on the child age; a detected infant sunburn is categorized as high severity); and
a user interface within the vehicle communicatively coupled with the safety categorization module and configured to display:
primary icon indicative of a current safety state category of the child from among the at least three safety state categories (col. 25, lines 17-25 & 66-67; col. 26, lines 1-2), … a safety state category including (col. 34, lines 35-66; col. 35, line 67 – col. 36, line 4: plurality of conditions i.e. sunburn, choking, etc., where each condition is categorized as either low, medium or high severity based on the child age).
Barcia does not expressly teach wherein at least one icon is indicative of a safety state category that comprises… a group associated with the at least one primary icon; and
one or more secondary icons indictive of one or more specific detected conditions associated with the child.
Deterding teaches wherein at least one icon is indicative of a safety state category that comprises… a group associated with the at least one primary icon; and
one or more secondary icons indictive of one or more specific detected conditions associated with the child (paragraph [0061]).
As the prior art of Deterding teaches the use of the child health monitoring device with a vehicle display (Deterding, paragraph [0042]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the red/yellow/green indicators regarding a child’s health as taught by Deterding, since Deterding states in paragraph [0061] that such a modification would result in allowing a caregiver to visually keep track of a child’s health and determine if any intervention is necessary.
As per claim 2, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is configured to identify a vital sign associated with the child (Barcia, col. 37, lines 14-20).
As per claim 3, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the user interface is configured to display an icon having a distinct color indicative of a current safety state category of the child to a driver of the vehicle on a display (Barcia, col. 25, lines 23-25 & 35-36).
As per claim 4, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the at least three safety state categories comprise:
an urgent safety state category indicative of a current safety state of the child requiring immediate attention (Barcia, col. 34, lines 47-48 & 66-67; col. 35, lines 1-3);
an intermediate safety state category indicative of a current safety state of the child that may be of concern but does not require immediate attention (Barcia, col. 34, lines 51-53); and
a normal safety state category indicating that no safety concerns for the child have been detected by the one or more sensors (Barcia, col. 34, lines 27-34).
As per claim 6, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the intermediate safety state category is customizable by a user to allow for selective enabling of criteria detected by the one or more sensors that will trigger display of an icon associated with the intermediate safety state category (Barcia, col. 25, lines 26-30; Deterding, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 7, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the urgent safety state category corresponds with a red icon, wherein the intermediate safety state category corresponds with a yellow icon, and wherein the normal safety state category corresponds with a green icon (Deterding, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 8, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the at least three safety state categories further comprise a sleeping category indicating that the child is asleep (Barcia, col. 34, lines 31-34).
As per claim 9, Barcia discloses a method for automated monitoring of a child within a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring one or more seats within a vehicle using one or more sensors positioned within a cabin of the vehicle (Fig. 3; col. 34, lines 27-36);
upon detecting the presence of a child within at least one seat of the one or more seats (col. 3, lines 8-13: activating upon detection of child being placed in car seat), monitoring the child using the one or more sensors to attempt to identify a plurality of safety status indicators relating to the child (col. 34, lines 27-36);
processing signals received from the one or more sensors to categorize a current safety state of the child within one of a plurality of safety state categories using the plurality of safety status indicators from the one or more sensors (col. 34, lines 35-66; col. 35, line 67 – col. 36, line 4: plurality of conditions i.e. sunburn, choking, etc., where each condition is categorized as either low, medium or high severity based on the child age; a detected infant sunburn is categorized as high severity); and
… a safety state category including a plurality of distinct safety conditions (col. 34, lines 35-66; col. 35, line 67 – col. 36, line 4: plurality of conditions i.e. sunburn, choking, etc., where each condition is categorized as either low, medium or high severity based on the child age; a detected infant sunburn is categorized as high severity).
Barcia does not expressly teach providing a display to a driver of the vehicle indicative of a real-time safety state of the child within a corresponding safety state category of the plurality of safety state categories, wherein the display is indicative of a safety state category.
Deterding teaches providing a display to a driver (paragraph [0042]) of the vehicle indicative of a real-time safety state of the child within a corresponding safety state category of the plurality of safety state categories, wherein the display is indicative of a safety state category (paragraph [0061]).
As the prior art of Deterding teaches the use of the child health monitoring device with a vehicle display (Deterding, paragraph [0042]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the red/yellow/green indicators regarding a child’s health as taught by Deterding, since Deterding states in paragraph [0061] that such a modification would result in allowing a caregiver to visually keep track of a child’s health and determine if any intervention is necessary.
As per claim 10, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of safety state categories comprises:
an urgent safety state category indicative of a current safety state of the child requiring immediate attention;
an intermediate safety state category indicative of a current safety state of the child that may be of concern but does not require immediate attention; and
a normal safety state category indicating that no safety concerns for the child have been detected by the one or more sensors.
As per claim 11, Barcia in view of Deterding further teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising, upon detecting a condition triggering the urgent safety state category, displaying a real-time video image of the child on the display (Barcia, col. 39, lines 41-44).
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcia in view of Deterding as applied above, and further in view of Schiebener et al. (Schiebener; US Pub No. 2024/0217477 A1).
As per claim 5, Barcia in view of Deterding teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the system is configured to display an icon associated with the urgent safety state category upon detection by the one or more sensors of any of the following conditions by a child:
choking of the child detected via a RADAR sensor (Barcia, col. 34, line 66);
a body temperature of the child outside of a predetermined temperature range measured by a thermal imaging sensor (Barcia, col. 15, lines 20-25);
… an unsafe body pose of the child detected via a camera or RADAR sensor (Barcia, col. 48, lines 27-33 & 44-46).
Barcia in view of Deterding does not expressly teach via a RADAR sensor… outside of a predetermined temperature range measured by a thermal imaging sensor… an improper seatbelt condition detected by a camera or seatbelt sensor.
Schiebener teaches via a RADAR sensor (paragraph [0013], line 13)… outside of a predetermined temperature range measured by a thermal imaging sensor (paragraph [0013], lines 14-15)… an improper seatbelt condition detected by a camera or seatbelt sensor (paragraph [0013], lines 4-5; paragraph [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the sensors as taught by Schiebener, since Schiebener states in paragraph [0004] and [0005] that such a modification would result in determining whether a passenger is safe while a vehicle is being operated by a driver.
As per claim 12, Barcia in view of Deterding teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising:
… seek detection of a choking condition of the child;
using the RADAR sensor and/or the camera to repeatedly seek detection of an unsafe body pose condition of the child…
and, upon detection of any of the foregoing conditions, displaying an icon indicative of the urgent safety state category.
Barcia in view of Deterding does not expressly teach using the RADAR sensor to repeatedly seek detection… using the camera and/or a seatbelt sensor to repeatedly seek detection of an improper seatbelt condition associated with the child.
Schiebener teaches using the RADAR sensor to repeatedly seek detection (paragraph [0013], line 13; paragraph [0080], lines 8-9)… using the camera and/or a seatbelt sensor to repeatedly seek detection of an improper seatbelt condition associated with the child (paragraph [0013], lines 4-5; paragraph [0069]; paragraph [0080], lines 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the sensors as taught by Schiebener, since Schiebener states in paragraph [0004] and [0005] that such a modification would result in determining whether a passenger is safe while a vehicle is being operated by a driver.
As per claim 13, Barcia in view of Deterding, and further in view of Schiebener, further teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising accepting input on a user interface indicative of a selection from among a plurality of optional safety state conditions to be associated with the intermediate safety state category (Barcia, col. 25, lines 26-30; col. 52, lines 59-65).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcia in view of Deterding and Schiebener as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Crandall et al. (Crandall; US Pub No. 2004/0056954 A1).
As per claim 14, Barcia in view of Deterding and Schiebener teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the optional safety state conditions comprise:
detection of an object in the mouth of the child (Barcia, col. 34, line 66)… and
detection of vomit from the child (Barcia, col. 36, line 3).
Barcia in view of Deterding and Schiebener does not expressly teach wherein the optional safety state conditions comprise:
… detection of an object being dropped by the child.
Crandall teaches wherein the optional safety state conditions comprise:
… detection of an object being dropped by the child (paragraph [0002], lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the backseat monitoring as taught by Crandall, since Crandall states in paragraphs [0002] and [0003] that such a modification would result in ascertaining whether or not a child is safe in the backseat while a driver is operating a vehicle.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcia in view of Deterding and Moeller et al. (Moeller; US Pub No. 2022/0161761 A1).
As per claim 15, Barcia teaches a computing device comprising a display within a vehicle, the computing device being configured to:
… and
…indicative of a current safety state category of a child in a selected seat (col. 34, lines 35-66; col. 35, line 67 – col. 36, line 4: plurality of conditions i.e. sunburn, choking, etc., where each condition is categorized as either low, medium or high severity based on the child age; a detected infant sunburn is categorized as high severity).
Barcia does not expressly teach allow a driver of the vehicle to select one or more seats within the vehicle for child monitoring and
display an icon on the display indicative of a current safety state category of a child… wherein the icon being displayed that is indicative of the current safety state category of the child is selected from a group of icons, each icon in the group providing a distinct color indicative of the current safety state category of the child to the driver on the display.
Moeller teaches allow a driver of the vehicle to select one or more seats within the vehicle for child monitoring (paragraph [0178], lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the seat selection as taught by Moeller, since Moeller states in paragraph [0178] that such a modification would result in allowing a driver to monitor the state of a passenger in each selected seat.
Deterding teaches display an icon on the display indicative of a current safety state category of a child… wherein the icon being displayed that is indicative of the current safety state category of the child is selected from a group of icons, each icon in the group providing a distinct color indicative of the current safety state category of the child to the driver on the display (paragraphs [0042] & [0061]).
As the prior art of Deterding teaches the use of the child health monitoring device with a vehicle display (Deterding, paragraph [0042]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the red/yellow/green indicators regarding a child’s health as taught by Deterding, since Deterding states in paragraph [0061] that such a modification would result in allowing a caregiver to visually keep track of a child’s health and determine if any intervention is necessary
As per claim 16, Barcia in view of Moeller and Deterding further teaches the computing device of claim 15, wherein the computing device is further configured to allow the driver to customize, at least in part, which detected conditions from within a plurality of conditions of the child are to correspond with at least one icon in the group of icons (Barcia, col. 25, lines 26-30; col. 26, lines 1-2).
As per claim 17, Barcia in view of Moeller and Deterding further teaches the computing device of claim 15, wherein the group of icons comprises:
a red icon indicative of a current safety state of the child requiring immediate attention;
a yellow icon indicative of a current safety state of the child that may be of concern but does not require immediate attention; and
a green icon indicating that no safety concerns for the child have been detected (Deterding, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 18, Barcia in view of Moeller and Deterding further teaches the computing device of claim 17, wherein the group of icons further comprises a blue icon indicative of a sleeping state of the child (Barcia, col. 25, lines 23-30; col. 34, lines 31-34: the color of the icon is a matter of design choice).
As per claim 19, Barcia in view of Moeller and Deterding further teaches the computing device of claim 17, wherein the computing device is further configured to display a secondary icon on the display, wherein the secondary icon is indicative of a specific safety condition, event, and/or behavior of the child (Barcia, col. 25, lines 23-30, col. 26, lines 1-2: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a secondary icon related to an additional condition, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential items involves only routine skill in the art.).
As per claim 20, Barcia in view of Moeller and Deterding further teaches the computing device of claim 19, wherein the secondary icon is selected from a plurality of secondary icons, each comprising an image providing an immediate visual indication of the specific safety condition, event, and/or behavior to the driver (Barcia, col. 25, lines 23-30, col. 26, lines 1-2: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a secondary icon related to an additional condition, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential items involves only routine skill in the art.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Barcia fails to disclose grouped safety state categories assigned upon detection of any one condition within a group; a primary icon representative of such grouped categories; or secondary icons representative of specific detected conditions, and that Deterding fails to cure these deficiencies (Remarks, pg. 11), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Barcia teaches the detection of a condition from a plurality of condition types and further categorizing that condition (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations Barcia in view of Deterding teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 and all associated dependent claims. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior of Barcia in view of Deterding does not teach the claim limitations of providing a display to a driver indicative of a real-time safety state of the child within a corresponding safety state category or wherein the display is indicative of a safety state category including a plurality of distinct safety conditions as Applicant’s invention contains multiple distinct safety conditions which are abstracted into a grouped safety state category, and the display presented to the driver is indicative of the category-level abstraction (Remarks, pgs. 14-15), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing limitations which are not present within the claims, and therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations the prior art of Barcia in view of Deterding teaches the limitations of independent claim 15 as outlined above and all associated dependent claims. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Deterding is non-analogous art with respect to claim 15 (Remarks, pg. 17-18), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Deterding is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of Barcia and Deterding are both drawn towards providing a viewable output with respect to the condition of a monitored individual viewable by a select trusted party. Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim limitations, independent claim 15 and all associated dependent claims are rejected as outlined above. Additionally, the prior art of Barcia teaches the display of an icon and the prior art of Deterding teaches providing a color representative of a condition. With that, the combination of Barcia in view of Deterding teaches the claim limitations as outlined above with respect to providing icons indicative of a state.
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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights