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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 8, and 15 (and 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 by dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the vehicle sensor being permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin”. There is no mention of “permanently affixing” a sensor within the vehicle in the specification. Applicants point to paragraphs [0041] and [0043-0045] for support. These detail:
[0041]: As previously explained, the vehicle sensors 121 may include one or more of radar sensors 123, LiDAR sensors 124, thermal sensors 125, and/or cameras 126. The vehicle sensors 121 are located inside the vehicle cabin 206. The vehicle sensors 121 are capable of capturing first sensor data 132 relating to the vehicle cabin 206 and the occupant(s) 202 in the vehicle cabin 206. As such, the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may activate one or more of the vehicle sensors 121 to capture first sensor data 132 of the vehicle cabin 206 including the occupants 202 and/or objects 214 in the vehicle cabin 206. The vehicle sensor(s) 121 may capture the first sensor data 132 in any suitable format including images, video, and/or point cloud. As an example and as shown in FIG. 2B, the first sensor data 132 may be from the perspective of the vehicle sensor 121 and in an image format, in which a portion of the occupant 202 is visible and a portion of the occupant 202 is occluded by the laptop 204. The first sensor data 132 may then be stored in the data store 115.
[0043]: The mobile devices 204 may include any device that is not a part of the vehicle 102 and/or is not permanently affixed to the vehicle 102 that is capable of capturing second sensor data 134. As an example, the mobile device 204 may be a personal device such as a mobile phone, a computer, a laptop, a tablet, a camera, a display unit, and/or a video player. The mobile device 204 may be positioned such that the mobile device 204 may be capable of capturing second sensor data 134 that relates to the occupants 202 and/or other objects 214 in the vehicle cabin 206. As such and as an example, an occupant 202 may be holding the mobile device 204 or resting the mobile device 204 on their legs. Alternatively and as an example, the mobile device 204 may be affixed to a surface inside the vehicle cabin 206 such as on the back of a vehicle seat. In such an example, the mobile device 204 may be affixed to the vehicle seat in a temporary manner such that the mobile device 204 may be easily removed.
[0044] The mobile device(s) 204 may be capable of communicating, receiving, transmitting, and/or broadcasting data. The vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may send a signal to the mobile device 204 requesting the second sensor data 134. As an example, the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may send a signal to the mobile device 204 requesting the second sensor data 134. In response, the mobile device 204 may capture and/or transmit the second sensor data 134 which may include information of the occupant(s) 202, the vehicle cabin 206, and/or objects 214 in the vehicle 102. As another example, the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may send a signal to the mobile device 204 requesting to take control of the camera of the mobile device 204. In such an example, in response to the mobile device 204 granting access to the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100, the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may assume control of the camera of the mobile device 204. Subsequently, the vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may capture the second sensor data 134 in the form of images and/or video. As an example and as shown in FIG. 2C, the second sensor data 134 may be from the perspective of the sensor in the mobile device 204 and in an image format, in which the portion of the occupant 202 that is occluded by the laptop 204 is visible.
[0045] The vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may analyze the second sensor data 134 to determine the number of occupants 202 in the vehicle 102, identify the occupant(s) 202 in the vehicle 102, and/or determine whether the occupant(s) 202 are positioned safely such as sitting down properly and/or having their seatbelts 208 securely fastened. The vehicle occupant safety determination system 100 may utilize any suitable image processing, machine learning, and/or artificial intelligence methods or processes to make the determinations and/or identifications.
The only mention of permanent affixation is in relevance to the mobile device not being permanently affixed, not the vehicle sensor. The only support found in those paragraphs is the fact that the vehicle sensor is located inside the vehicle cabin, not permanently affixed. Therefore there is lack of written description for such a limitation. Correction or identification of support is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1-20, applicant asserts:
As an initial matter, Applicant respectfully submits that Rehfeld and Gong cannot be combined as proposed in the Office Action. As an example, the Office Action cites [0045] of Rehfeld, which includes the following - "The reflections on these surfaces may be leveraged to circumvent problems created by the aforementioned cases of occlusion, especially of characteristics, e.g., people, animals, objects etc., on the rear seats, without the need to resort to extreme mounting positions for a single camera or even multiple cameras." In the aforementioned paragraph, Rehfeld teaches away from using multiple cameras and highlights using a single camera and reflective surfaces. As such, Rehfeld cannot be combined with Gong.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is misconstruing the mentioning of an alternative as teaching away. Rehfeld explains that another way to do this process of detection when occlusion is present is to use a secondary camera, but their method does not rely on that. Rehfeld does not “teach away” by mentioning an alternative when describing their method, additionally, Gong is relied upon for the two camera limitation, not Rehfeld.
Further in the remarks applicant continues:
Nonetheless, solely in an effort to advance the prosecution, independent claim 1 is amended as set forth in the Listing of Claims above. Support for these amendments can be found at least at paragraphs [0041] and [0043]-[0045] of the present specification. As an example, claim 1 as amended recites "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 permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin and the mobile device being not permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin." Rehfeld does not disclose these recitations. Gong, Nagata, Breaux, and Park do not cure the deficiency of Rehfeld.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with some of the assertion. Rehfeld teaches a vehicle sensor affixed to the cabin ([0047]: “Furthermore, the camera 106, for example mounted in a front of the cabin 104, facing rearwards against the driving direction of the vehicle 100”), however, Rehfeld does not explicitly describe its mounting as “permanent”, so an additional art will be relied upon for that. Gong however, does teach the use of a secondary camera to capture occluded objects (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”). So if Gong’s secondary mobile device was used in the vehicle system, it would not be permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin, they would be held by users as taught in Gong ([0027]: “An example of this is shown in FIG. 3, in which four mobile devices are held by spectators at a soccer match”). So the combination of Rehfeld and Gong does teach the second limitation of the mobile device not being permanently affixed to the vehicle.
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 Rehfeld et al. (US 20230377352 A1 Hereafter “Rehfeld”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”) in further view of Nagata et al. (US 20220212658 A1 Hereinafter “Nagata”) in further view of Guadin et al. (US 10783725 B1 Hereinafter “Gaudin”).
Regarding claim 1, Rehfeld teaches a system, the system comprising:
a processor ([0028]: “The computer system may comprise a plurality of computer hardware components (for example a processor, for example processing unit or processing network, at least one memory, for example memory unit or memory network, and at least one non-transitory data storage)”); and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0028]: “The computer system may comprise a plurality of computer hardware components (for example a processor, for example processing unit or processing network, at least one memory, for example memory unit or memory network, and at least one non-transitory data storage)”), 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 ([0045]: “For example, if a person sitting on a rear seat is occluded in the direct line of sight and leaves the vehicle or switches seats while this occlusion persists, a conventional approach only depending on the direct line of side may arrive at detecting a changed state in seat occupancy without any way to explain it. The additional use of detection and tracking of characteristics in the reflective surface resolves this problem by allowing for a continuous monitoring of the state”. The first data is the line of sight data, which is traditionally relied upon for seatbelt detection. In a circumstance where the line of sight is occluded, a second data is relied upon (reflective surface data) to determine seatbelt data), the vehicle sensor being ([0047]: “Furthermore, the camera 106, for example mounted in a front of the cabin 104, facing rearwards against the driving direction of the vehicle 100”)
determine, in response to the portion of the occupant that is occluded in the first sensor data being visible in the second ([0008]: “In particular, characteristics inside the cabin of the vehicle may be determined, wherein the characteristics may describe, for example, a person or portions of a person, a child-seat, a bag, an empty seat, or the like. The person may be an adult or a child. Also, other kinds of objects like a mobile phone, a laptop, a box or a seat belt may be described by the characteristics”. These characteristics are in the context of vehicle safety “In interior sensing applications, feature functions like seat occupancy detection and seatbelt recognition are fundamental building blocks for both convenience and safety-related system components” [0002]).
Rehfeld does not expressly disclose swapping to a second mobile device camera due to an occlusion, and wherein the mobile device is not permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin.
However, Gong teaches swapping to a second mobile device camera to capture data when the line of sight is occluded (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”) and wherein the mobile device is not permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin (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”). So if Gong’s secondary mobile device was used in the vehicle system, it would not be permanently affixed within the vehicle cabin, they would be held by users as taught in Gong ([0027]: “An example of this is shown in FIG. 3, in which four mobile devices are held by spectators at a soccer match”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rehfeld’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device 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 for occluded objects permits accurate detection of an occluded object by switching to a camera that has line of sight of the object. This known benefit in Gong is applicable to Rehfeld’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to imaging systems that deal with occluded objects. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Rehfeld’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Gong’s use of a second camera in a mobile device 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 for occluded objects in imaging systems that deal with occluded objects and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
While it is presumed that Rehfeld’s seatbelt detection system would raise safety issues for not detecting a seatbelt on an individual since the system is designed for safety-related components ([0002]: ““In interior sensing applications, feature functions like seat occupancy detection and seatbelt recognition are fundamental building blocks for both convenience and safety-related system components”), the combination of Rehfeld and Gong does not expressly disclose determination of safety issue from seatbelt detection.
However, Nagata teaches determination of safety issue by providing a notification ([0040]: “The vehicle 102 may also detect whether the seat belt is being worn correctly. Some occupants may choose to adjust or place both arms on the same side of the shoulder strap of the seat belt or may wear the seat belt such that the shoulder strap is behind the occupant's back. Wearing seat belts improperly reduces the effectiveness of the seat belt and reduces safety of the occupant within the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle 102 may provide an alert or notification to the driver or user when it detects a seat belt is being worn incorrectly”).
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 Rehfeld and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Nagata’s determination of safety issues 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, Nagata’s determination of safety issues permits accurate detection of safety issues using seat belt detection data. This known benefit in Nagata is applicable to the combination of Rehfeld 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 Rehfeld and Gong’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Nagata’s determination of safety issues 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 Nagata’s determination of safety issues 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.
While it is presumed that Rehfeld’s sensor would be permanently affixed to the vehicle to be secure, Rehfeld does not expressly disclose a sensor permanently affixed to the vehicle.
However, Gaudin teaches a camera permanently affixed to the vehicle (Col. 6, lines 55-65: “As another example, internals sensor(s) 38 may instead (or also) include seatbelt sensors that are configured to detect when each seatbelt in vehicle 12 is engaged or not engaged. In certain embodiments where internal sensor(s) 38 include an inward-facing camera, the camera may be permanently affixed to vehicle 12 (e.g., on the interior of the frame, on the dashboard, on the inner surface of a windshield, etc.)”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rehfeld’s camera mounting method to include Gaudin’s permanent camera mounting method 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, Gaudin’s permanent camera mounting method permits a secure way of mounting cameras in a vehicle to detect passengers. This known benefit in Gaudin is applicable to Rehfeld’s camera mounting method as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to cameras mounted in vehicles to detect passengers. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying Rehfeld’s camera mounting method to include Gaudin’s permanent camera mounting method 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 Gaudin’s permanent camera mounting method in mounting cameras in a vehicle to detect passengers 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, Rehfeld further teaches wherein the vehicle sensor includes one or more of:
a camera ([0010]: “The sensor may be any kind of a sensor (e.g., digital imaging device) suitable to observe the interior of a vehicle, preferably a sensor configured to capture an image of the interior of the cabin of the vehicle. Therefore, the sensor may be a camera”);
a thermal sensor ([0010]: “The sensor may be any kind of a sensor (e.g., digital imaging device) suitable to observe the interior of a vehicle, preferably a sensor configured to capture an image of the interior of the cabin of the vehicle. Therefore, the sensor may be a camera, preferably an infrared camera”. The “or” limitation means the list is disjunctive and only one of the listed items is needed for a prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, Nagata further teaches wherein the safety issue includes one or more of:
positioning of a seatbelt ([0040]: “The vehicle 102 may also detect whether the seat belt is being worn correctly. Some occupants may choose to adjust or place both arms on the same side of the shoulder strap of the seat belt or may wear the seat belt such that the shoulder strap is behind the occupant's back. Wearing seat belts improperly reduces the effectiveness of the seat belt and reduces safety of the occupant within the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle 102 may provide an alert or notification to the driver or user when it detects a seat belt is being worn incorrectly”. The “or” limitation means the list is disjunctive and only one of the listed items is needed for a prima facie case of obviousness); or
The rationale for this combination is similar to the rationale for the claim 1 combination for Nagata due to the incorrect wearing of the seatbelt being part of the original safety determination.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, Nagata 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 ([0040]: “The vehicle 102 may also detect whether the seat belt is being worn correctly. Some occupants may choose to adjust or place both arms on the same side of the shoulder strap of the seat belt or may wear the seat belt such that the shoulder strap is behind the occupant's back. Wearing seat belts improperly reduces the effectiveness of the seat belt and reduces safety of the occupant within the vehicle. Thus, the vehicle 102 may provide an alert or notification to the driver or user when it detects a seat belt is being worn incorrectly”).
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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Nagata’s notification system 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, Nagata’s notification system permits notifying the driver when a safety issue is present, improving driver understanding of their vehicle. This known benefit in Nagata is applicable to the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’s seatbelt detection system for occluded objects to include Nagata’s notification system 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 Nagata’s notification system 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 7, the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin teaches the system of claim 1, in addition, Gong further teaches wherein the mobile device includes one or more of:
a mobile phone ([0003]: “Mobile devices, including but not limited to smart phones, digital cameras, and tablet computers, are now generally capable of capturing media content such as audio, photos and/or video);
a tablet ([0003]: “Mobile devices, including but not limited to smart phones, digital cameras, and tablet computers, are now generally capable of capturing media content such as audio, photos and/or video);
a camera ([0003]: “Mobile devices, including but not limited to smart phones, digital cameras, and tablet computers, are now generally capable of capturing media content such as audio, photos and/or video. The “or” limitation means the list is disjunctive and only one of the listed items is needed for a prima facie 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. Rehfeld also discloses this information ([0028]: “The computer system may comprise a plurality of computer hardware components (for example a processor, for example processing unit or processing network, at least one memory, for example memory unit or memory network, and at least one non-transitory data storage)”). 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 Rehfeld et al. (US 20230377352 A1 Hereafter “Rehfeld”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”) in further view of Nagata et al. (US 20220212658 A1 Hereinafter “Nagata”) in further view of Guadin et al. (US 10783725 B1 Hereinafter “Gaudin”) in further view of Breaux et al. (US 20190052747 A1 Hereinafter “Breaux”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 accidently take a picture from another device if there are multiple in the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld et al. (US 20230377352 A1 Hereafter “Rehfeld”) in view of Gong et al. (US 20140049659 A1 “Gong”) in further view of Nagata et al. (US 20220212658 A1 Hereinafter “Nagata”) in further view of Guadin et al. (US 10783725 B1 Hereinafter “Gaudin”) in further view of Park et al. (US 20240336274 A1 Hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin 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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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 Rehfeld, Gong, Nagata, and Gaudin’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:
Chan et al. (US 10832261) teaches permanently affixing cameras in vehicles
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights