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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, the amendments have corrected the issue, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejections of claims 1-20, the remarks are moot due to the new combination being used for the rejection, while previous art may be used, it is not specifically challenged in the remarks for the content it is used for.
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with ENANG AKAN on 09/30/26.
The application has been amended as follows:
A system, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
request, in response to a portion of an occupant being occluded in a first sensor data captured from a vehicle sensor in a vehicle cabin, a second sensor data from a mobile device capable of capturing second sensor data in the vehicle cabin, the vehicle sensor being within the vehicle cabin and the mobile device being at least one of:
an object causing the portion of the occupant to be occluded; [[and]] or
a personal device in possession of the occupant, possession being held or resting on the occupant; and
determine, in response to the portion of the occupant that is occluded in the first sensor data being visible in the second sensor data, whether there is a safety issue.
A method, the method comprising:
requesting, in response to a portion of an occupant being occluded in a first sensor data captured from a vehicle sensor in a vehicle cabin, a second sensor data from a mobile device capable of capturing second sensor data in the vehicle cabin, the vehicle sensor being within the vehicle cabin and the mobile device being at least one of:
an object causing the portion of the occupant to be occluded; [[and]] or
a personal device in possession of the occupant, possession being held or resting on the occupant; and
determining, in response to the portion of the occupant that is occluded in the first sensor data being visible in the second sensor data, whether there is a safety issue.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to:
request, in response to a portion of an occupant being occluded in a first sensor data captured from a vehicle sensor in a vehicle cabin, a second sensor data from a mobile device capable of capturing second sensor data in the vehicle cabin, the vehicle sensor being within the vehicle cabin and the mobile device being at least one of:
an object causing the portion of the occupant to be occluded; [[and]] or
a personal device in possession of the occupant, possession being held or resting on the occupant; and
determine, in response to the portion of the occupant that is occluded in the first sensor data being visible in the second sensor data, whether there is a safety issue.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20240278747 A1 Hereafter “George”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”).
Regarding claim 1, George teaches a system, the system comprising:
a processor ([0060]: “In particular, the program code may be distributed using a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the embodiments described herein”); and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0060]: “In particular, the program code may be distributed using a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the embodiments described herein”), cause the processor to:
([0042]: “In some embodiments as, determining 8 or re-determining 12 whether the seatbelt is correctly fastened comprises determining that the seatbelt is occluded by an object and/or a body part of the person and the prompt comprises prompting the person to clear a sensor field of view on the seatbelt”), ([0045]: “The occlusion of seatbelt 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 may also occur by an object, which e. g. one of the persons 1, 2, and/or 3 has placed in the camera field of view, such as a drinking cup, a mobile phone, a jacket, a handbag etc”. The mobile phone acts as the mobile device), the vehicle sensor being within the vehicle cabin ([0032]: “FIG. 1 depicts the interior of a cabin of a vehicle as it is seen in a sensor field-of-view, such as the field-of-view of a camera installed in the cabin”) and the mobile device being at least one of:
an object causing the portion of the occupant to be occluded ([0042]: “In some embodiments as, determining 8 or re-determining 12 whether the seatbelt is correctly fastened comprises determining that the seatbelt is occluded by an object and/or a body part of the person and the prompt comprises prompting the person to clear a sensor field of view on the seatbelt”. The “or” means the list of items in in the alternative, which means the only one listed item need taught for a case of obviousness); or
;
determine, in response to the portion of the occupant that is occluded in the first sensor data ([0050]: “In embodiments shown in FIG. 5, wherein the re-determining 12 does still not provide the positive confirmation that the seatbelt is correctly fastened, the method further comprises repeating outputting 10 the prompt and re-determining 12 for a preset number of times. In continued absence of the positive confirmation 10 for a preset number of times 15, such as e. g. n times, that the seatbelt is not correctly fastened, at least one of an overriding signal, enabling the person to override seatbelt assistance, and a warning signal indicating that at least one seatbelt is not correctly fastened, is outputted 16”).
George does not expressly disclose requesting a second sensor data from a mobile device to capture data due to an occlusion.
However, Gong teaches a second sensor from a mobile device capable of capturing image data ([0024]: “An example of this is seen in FIG. 2. Media content sensed by second mobile device 108 may be streamed to and displayed on first mobile device 102 in real time”) and requesting a second sensor data from a mobile device camera to capture data due to an occlusion to obtain data without the occlusion (Fig. 2, [0024]: “Once first mobile device 102 has established a persistent communication link with second mobile device 108, first mobile device 102 may control second mobile device 108 to enable media content sensed from a perspective of second mobile device 108 to be consumed using first mobile device 102, and to be captured under control of first mobile device 102. An example of this is seen in FIG. 2. Media content sensed by second mobile device 108 may be streamed to and displayed on first mobile device 102 in real time. This provides the user of first mobile device 102 an unobstructed view of object 104”. This capturing of image data can be done via request “A separate, on-demand data path 536 may be established between first mobile device 502 and second mobile device 508 when, e.g., first mobile device 502 provides a command to second mobile device 508 to record media content. For instance, a user of first mobile device 502 viewing streamed media content from the perspective of second mobile device 508 may decide to record a portion of the content. A command may be sent to second mobile device 508, e.g., via persistent communication link 532, to initiate recordation of media content”[0052]. For the method to be “on-demand” the first device must make a request (demand) to the second device to begin recording content. If combined with George, the mobile device occluding the seatbelt would be accessed to image the occluded area of the seatbelt, hence the combination of George and Gong teaches the claimed limitations).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify George’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device and mobile device capable of capturing image data for occluded objects because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device and mobile device capable of capturing image data for occluded objects permits accurate detection of an occluded object by switching to a camera that has line of sight of the object and a camera capable of being accessed in a mobile device. This known benefit in Gong is applicable to George’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to systems for capturing image of objects that are occluded in some way. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying George’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device and mobile device capable of capturing image data for occluded objects would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device and mobile device capable of capturing image data for occluded objects in systems for capturing image of objects that are occluded in some way and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, George further teaches wherein the vehicle sensor includes one or more of:
a camera ([0032]: “FIG. 1 depicts the interior of a cabin of a vehicle as it is seen in a sensor field-of-view, such as the field-of-view of a camera installed in the cabin. Fig 10 also shows the vehicle cabin interior camera system). The “or” means the list of items in in the alternative, which means the only one listed item need taught for a case of obviousness);
a thermal sensor ([0054]: “In some embodiments and as already mentioned above, the cameras may comprise cameras for visible light and infrared (IR)-cameras or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, George further teaches wherein the safety issue includes one or more of:
fastening of a seatbelt ([0050]: “In embodiments shown in FIG. 5, wherein the re-determining 12 does still not provide the positive confirmation that the seatbelt is correctly fastened, the method further comprises repeating outputting 10 the prompt and re-determining 12 for a preset number of times. In continued absence of the positive confirmation 10 for a preset number of times 15, such as e. g. n times, that the seatbelt is not correctly fastened, at least one of an overriding signal, enabling the person to override seatbelt assistance, and a warning signal indicating that at least one seatbelt is not correctly fastened, is outputted 16”);
positioning of a seatbelt ([0043]: “In some embodiments, determining 8 or re-determining 12 whether the seatbelt 4, 5, and 6 is correctly fastened comprises determining 22 that one or more portions of the seatbelt, such as a shoulder belt and/or a lap belt of the seatbelt 4, 5, or 6 are positioned incorrectly and the prompt comprises prompting the person to correct the seatbelt positioning”); or
positioning of the occupant ([0052]: “In some embodiments as depicted in FIG. 6, the prompt 30 comprises a prompt to the person to correct a seating position 31 and/or to remove an object and/or a body part occluding the seatbelt 32, 33 and/or to touch the seatbelt 34 and/or wherein the prompt comprises visual and/or audio output signals”. IF the prompt is to correct seating position the safety issue is includes determining the position of the occupant is incorrect, hence the message to change it is displayed. The “or” means the list of items in in the alternative, which means the only one listed item need taught for a case of obviousness).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, George further teaches wherein the machine-readable instructions further include instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
generate, in response to a safety issue, a notification ([0050]: “In embodiments shown in FIG. 5, wherein the re-determining 12 does still not provide the positive confirmation that the seatbelt is correctly fastened, the method further comprises repeating outputting 10 the prompt and re-determining 12 for a preset number of times. In continued absence of the positive confirmation 10 for a preset number of times 15, such as e. g. n times, that the seatbelt is not correctly fastened, at least one of an overriding signal, enabling the person to override seatbelt assistance, and a warning signal indicating that at least one seatbelt is not correctly fastened, is outputted 16”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, George further teaches wherein the mobile device includes one or more of:
a mobile phone ([0045]: “The occlusion of seatbelt 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 may also occur by an object, which e. g. one of the persons 1, 2, and/or 3 has placed in the camera field of view, such as a drinking cup, a mobile phone, a jacket, a handbag etc”. The “or” means the list of items in in the alternative, which means the only one listed item need taught for a case of obviousness);
Regarding claim 8, the content of claim 8 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the content of claim 9 is similar to the content of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the content of claim 10 is similar to the content of claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the content of claim 12 is similar to the content of claim 5, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, the content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 7, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the content of claim 15 is similar to the content of claim 1, with the additional teachings of a non-transitory computer readable medium. George also discloses this information ([0061]: “Computer readable storage media, which are inherently non-transitory, may include volatile and non-volatile, and removable and non-removable tangible media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data”). Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1, along with the additional teachings above.
Regarding claim 16, the content of claim 16 is similar to the content of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the content of claim 17 is similar to the content of claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the content of claim 19 is similar to the content of claim 5, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 5.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20240278747 A1 Hereafter “George”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”) in further view of Breaux et al. (US 20190052747 A1 Hereinafter “Breaux”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further include instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
The combination of George and Gong does not expressly disclose detecting a mobile device from a plurality of mobile devices in the vehicle cabin.
However, Breaux teaches detecting a mobile device from a plurality of mobile devices in the vehicle cabin ([0012]: “In a first aspect of the present invention, a system for determining the location of a mobile device within a vehicle”. This device can be among multiple devices “If there is more than one mobile device in a vehicle, being able to determine which mobile device is in, near, or closest to the driver quadrant or space within the vehicle provides even more valuable data” [0007]).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Breaux’s mobile device detection because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Breaux’s mobile device detection permits identification of a mobile device in a vehicle alongside location. This known benefit in Breaux is applicable to the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to detection of objects in vehicles. The combination of George and Gong teaches a system that can access other mobile devices when capturing images of seatbelts if the seatbelt is occluded from the original camera. Breaux teaches a way to detect possible other mobile device in the vehicle and their location. The combination of George and Gong would find it beneficial if a seatbelt was occluded to detect the mobile device closest to the occluded object using Breaux’s method and request a picture from that device. This would allow the system to not accidentally take a picture from another device if there are multiple in the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Breaux’s mobile device detection would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Breaux’s mobile device detection in detection of object in vehicles and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the content of claim 11 is similar to the content of claim 4, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the content of claim 18 is similar to the content of claim 4, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 4.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20240278747 A1 Hereafter “George”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”) in further view of Park et al. (US 20240336274 A1 Hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of George and Gong teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further include instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
The combination of George and Gong does not expressly disclose performing a vehicle action in relation to a safety issue.
However, Park teaches performing a vehicle action in relation to a safety issue ([0022]: “The one or more instructions, when executed by the controller, may further cause the autonomous driving control device to: determine, based on the event, whether a seat belt of the user is fastened; based on not receiving, within the first time period, the user response associated with the transfer of control: output, via the notification device, the first notification based on a determination that the seat belt is fastened; and control the host vehicle to reduce the travel speed of the host vehicle at the second rate based on a determination that the seat belt is not fastened”. Reduction in travel speed is the vehicle action in response to the safety issue of non-fastened seatbelt).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Park’s vehicle action based on safety issue because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Park’s vehicle action based on safety issue permits causing a vehicle to take action when a passenger does not have their seatbelt on improving the overall safety of the passenger. This known benefit in Park is applicable to the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to detection of seatbelts for safety systems. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of George and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Park’s vehicle action based on safety issue would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Park’s vehicle action based on safety issue in detection of seatbelts for safety systems and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the content of claim 13 is similar to the content of claim 6, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the content of claim 20 is similar to the content of claim 6, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeJuliis et al. (US 10832261) teaches multiple monitoring devices for monitoring a child in the back seat where the monitoring devices can be a laptop with a camera
George et al. (US 20210206344 A1) teaches determining if seat belts are occluded from vehicle interior cameras, and the occluding object being a mobile device in possession of a person on a lap.
Borras et al. (US 20210233331 A1) teaches mobile devices used to image people in vehicles being held by the people in the vehicles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
