DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1,2,3,6,7 and 8,9,10,13 and 14,15,16,19,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1):
Claim(s) 3 and 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of MUNETAKA et al. (JP 2023-044589 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 6,21 and 13,23 and 19,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1):
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1):
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1) as applied in claims 7 and 20 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 24,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1) as applied in claims 6,21 and 13,23 and 19 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 22:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,2,3,6,7 and 8,9,10,13 and 14,15,16,19,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
PNG
media_image1.png
1300
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 0: establish broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as shown in footnotes throughout this Office action.
Step 1: Claim 1 a machine; claim 8 a manufacture; claim 14 a process:
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium1 including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
obtain images via a vehicular monocular camera at different times of a seat pattern tangibly associated with a vehicle seat;
generate time-based depth maps arising from a depth model applied via machine learning to within the image;
assess the depth maps to determine a characteristic of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generate time-based point clouds based on the depth maps; and
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained via a comparison of features between the point clouds.
Step 2A, prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea: a mental process and math via claim 8 (representative of claims 1,8,14):
obtain
generate2time-based depth maps3…
assess the depth maps to determine a characteristic…
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained via a comparison
Step 2A, prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the addition elements:
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
… a vehicular monocular camera at different times of a seat pattern tangibly associated with a vehicle seat;
… machine learning to within the image;
… a characteristic of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generate time-based point clouds…
…features between the point clouds.
do not improve technology or technical field or make integral use of a particular machine as indicated in applicant’s disclosure:
PNG
media_image2.png
149
875
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In contrast, new claims 21,22,23,24,25,26 make integral use of a particular machine as indicated in applicant’s disclosure and thus not rejected under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because each additional element, such as in claim 8:
8. A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
… a vehicular monocular camera at different times of a seat pattern tangibly associated with a vehicle seat;
… machine learning to within the image;
… a characteristic of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generate time-based point clouds…
…features between the point clouds.
, considered individually or with the mental process & math adheres to conventional practices as indicated in applicant’s specification’s background:
PNG
media_image3.png
833
1104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026, pages 7-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Rejections under 35 USC 101
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 7, last para: “vehicle occupant sensing and tracking systems, specifically a non-contact, vision-only solution that derives physical depths and forces”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 8, 1st para: “specific rules improving vehicle occupant sensing and tracking”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 8, 2nd para: “depth estimation accuracy…transforming…characterizing the physical properties of a real-world”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Claim(s) 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1):
Claim(s) 3 and 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of MUNETAKA et al. (JP 2023-044589 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 6,21 and 13,23 and 19,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1):
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1):
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1) as applied in claims 7 and 20 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
Claim(s) 24,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation II in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1) as applied in claims 6,21 and 13,23 and 19 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 22:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,8,14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1):
PNG
media_image4.png
1300
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re 1. (Currently Amended), BLAESING teaches A system, comprising:
a (“fast clocked”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk) processor; and
a memory (“capacity”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk) communicably coupled to the processor and storing machine-readable (“module”4, pg. 2, 1st txt blk) instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
obtain images via a vehicular 5 camera (or likewise one vehicle-interior photosensitive-camera via “a pictorial6 Detection of the motor vehicle interior”, pg. 2, 1st txt blk, 2nd S) at different times (or likewise “temporally recursive high-pass filtering of the camera sensor signal and for generating a difference image as a result array of a subtraction”, pg. 7, 4th txt blk, 4th S) of a seat (“reference”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk) pattern (functionally) tangibly78 (understood given the claimed “seat”: tangible seat) associated with a (“passenger”, pg. 2, 1st txt blk) vehicle seat (paring the passenger seat & the ref. pattern via “Comparison”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk);
generate (a comparison-figure via a math trace-function assigning/mapping seat reflections x to depth y: y=f(x)) time-based depth maps (or likewise producing/outputting “reference depth maps9”, pg. 3, 2nd txt blk) arising from a depth model applied via machine learning to10 (i.e., with) within11 the images ;
assess (via “an evaluation unit”, pg. 2, 1st txt blk) the depth maps to determine a characteristic (“intensity”12, pg. 2, 6th txt blk) of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generate time-based point clouds based on the depth maps; and
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained via a comparison of features between (or likewise “intensity between positional Chen pixels of the two images to be compared (difference image mood)”, pg. 3, penult txt blk) the point clouds.
BLAESING does not teach the difference of claim 1 of:
time-based (depth maps arising from a depth)13 model applied via machine learning (to14 (i.e., with) ) within15 (the images) …16
generate time-based point clouds based on (the depth maps; and)
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained (via a comparison of features between) the point clouds.
Kennedy teach the difference of claim 1 of:
time-based (depth maps arising from a depth)17 model applied via machine learning (or likewise “depth image…model prediction…reconstruction…takes 1.817 milliseconds…to predict the depth view from single image” [0048], 2nd & 3rd & 4th & 6th Ss: reproduced below) (to18 (i.e., with) ) within19 (the images) …20
generate time-based point clouds based on (or likewise “The point cloud is reconstructed based on…a predicted depth value” [0048] 8th S, predicted at said 1.817 milliseconds) (the depth maps; and)
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained (or likewise “train the final model that maps images to contact forces” [0055] 1st S via equation (6) in [0054] as a function of a force21 vector “(F)”, pg. 7, lcol, 1st S) (via a comparison of features between) the point clouds.
PNG
media_image5.png
599
940
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
713
1066
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Since BLAESING suggests a contact/touch force trigger with the problem of not having an discernment image used with the weighted-tactile trigger, 2nd page, 2nd txt blk:
Conventional automotive interior surveillance systems where a pictorial recording of the motor vehicle interior is not provided use a weight-dependent trigger in the seat, to see if the seat is occupied or not. Problematic with egg Such a system is that it is not between an occupant and a object placed on the seat, for example a crate of drinks or a child seat can be distinguished.
one of skill in the art of seat triggers and pictorial recording (i.e., a camera) would have looked to other teachings for the solution to the problematic distinguishing (i.e., classifying) between an occupant and a crate of drinks or a child car seat and thus make BLAESING’s be as Kennedy’s seeing in the change “quick computing, neural network model(s) composed of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLP) are leveraged to capture the nonlinear, rich feature representations of the images for highly-accurate classification and regression”, Kennedy [0056] 2nd S by “explicit…creative steps”22 :
a) creating eight (maybe 12) silicone vehicle car seat material patches;
b) attach Kennedy’s finger sensors to each patch;
b) cut holes in the original factory car seat material of BLAESING for the patches and respective cabling;
b) installing via the holes the patches at different locations of the vehicle car seat such as the portions of the vehicle seat where a person’s/occupant’s body is most likely to be present such as the bottom four corners and back four corners (maybe four more sensors for the arm rests) of the vehicle car seat thus having eight installed vehicle car seat sensors;
c) connect wires/cables from the patched sensors to the car battery/fuse box;
c) sew-up the holes/patches in the car seat with thread and a sewing needle;
c) turn-on ignition to “ON”;
b) measuring the weight by adding the total force from each of the eight sensors;
c) set a threshold via a program for the weight of a person/occupant;
d) input the threshold to the car’s vehicle computer as programed for the sensors;
d) determine whether the measurement exceeds the weight threshold;
e) classify/distinguish/recognize, via Kennedy’s trained machine learning classifier, a vehicle seat depth map pattern of an occupant from other patterns, such as a crate of drinks or a baby car seat based on the thresholding (i.e. triggering); and
e) make this accurate image classification be as the input “s(n,k)” to BLAESING’s fig. 2.
Re 2. (Original), BLAESING discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions to assess the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes assessing whether the object is a person (or “you”, pg. 2, 2nd txt blk).
Claim 8 is rejected like claim 1:
8. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to:
obtain images via a vehicular monocular camera at different times of a seat pattern tangibly associated with a vehicle seat;
generate time-based depth maps arising from a depth model applied via machine learning to within the images ;
assess the depth maps to determine a characteristic of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generate time-based point clouds based on the depth maps; and
generate a force map based on force vectors obtained via a comparison of features between the point clouds.
Claim 9 is rejected like claim 2:
9. (Original), The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions to assess the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes assessing whether the object is a person.
Claim 14 is rejected like claims 1 and 8:
14. A method, comprising:
obtaining images via a vehicular monocular camera at different times of a seat pattern tangibly associated with a vehicle seat;
generating time-based depth maps arising from a depth model applied via machine learning to within the images;
assessing the depth maps to determine a characteristic of an object residing on the vehicle seat;
generating time-based point clouds based on the depth maps; and
generating a force map based on force vectors obtained via a comparison of features between the point clouds.
Claim 15 rejected like claims 2 & 9:
15. (Original), The method of claim 14, wherein the step of assessing the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes assessing whether the object is a person.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of MUNETAKA et al. (JP 2023-044589 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image7.png
1300
755
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Re 3. (Original),, BLAESING teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions to assess the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes
assessing whether the object (“changing reflection location of the emitted infrared rays”, pg. 2, 2nd txt blk) is associated (via “corresponds”23, pg. 2, last txt blk) with a deformation24 (“reference”, pg. 2, 3rd txt blk) pattern (comparing the passenger seat to the reference pattern).
BLAESING does not teach the difference of claim 3 of “deformation”25.
MUNETAKA teaches the difference of claim 3 of:
deformation26 (comprised by “a plurality of deformation…patterns…of the seat 10”, pg. 9, 5th txt blk).
Since BLAESING teaches a seat, one of skill in the art of seats can make BLAESING’s (reference patten) be as MUNETAKA’s (deformation patten) predictably recognizing the change “changed to a form suitable for…A comfortable sitting state”, MUNETAKA, pg. 9, penult txt blk.
Claim 10 is rejected like claim 3:
10. (Original), The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions to assess the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes assessing whether the object is associated with a deformation pattern.
Claim 16 is rejected like claim 3:
16. (Original), The method of claim 14, wherein the step of assessing the depth map to determine the characteristic of the object residing on the seat further includes assessing whether the object is associated with a deformation pattern.
Claim(s) 6,21 and 13,23 and 19,25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1):
PNG
media_image8.png
1300
828
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re 6. (Currently Amended), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to:
evaluate27 the force map to28 determine if2930 a vehicle occupant (or “you”, BLAESING: pg. 2, 2nd txt blk) is in a high31 (“current”, BLAESING: pg. 2, 1st txt blk) state of acceleration (or likewise said “a weight-dependent trigger”, BLAESING, pg. 2, 2nd txt blk).
BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy does not teach the difference of claim 6 of:
if3233 (a vehicle occupant) is in a high state.
Sasabuchi teach the difference of claim 6 of:
if3435 (a vehicle occupant) is in a high state (or likewise “if the driver tiredness level indicates that the driver is in a non-tired state (high state or awareness and alertness)” [0124] last S).
Since BLAESING suggests possibilities of using a plurality of actuators, such as an airbag actuator and an alarm actuator, for a vehicle, pg. 7, penult txt blk:
The output signal of the comparator element 6 acts on the input of a downstream processing system 7 which, depending on the movement determined, possibly controls one or more actuators 8 , 8 ′, 8″. The actuator 8 can be the control module of an airbag deployment unit and the actuator 8 'can be an alarm module.
one of skill in the art of actuators would of/could of looked to other teachings of vehicle actuators:
Sasabuchi’s cruise control actuator:
[0001] Currently many vehicles may include an adaptive cruise control functionality that allows a vehicle to be safely operated while a is actuated. In many cases, the adaptive cruise control functionality allows the vehicle to slow its speed from a set cruising speed to a lower cruising speed when a preceding vehicle is present and is determined to be slowing down. In many systems, when the preceding vehicle comes to a complete stop, the adaptive cruise control functionality stops the vehicle and restarts vehicle movement if the preceding vehicle restarts movement within a predetermined period of time (e.g., three seconds).
and thus make BLAESING’s of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy be as Sasabuchi’s seeing in the change “an adaptive cruise control functionality that allows a vehicle to be safely operated” , Sasabuchi [0001], and “A ‘vehicle system’…used to enhance the vehicle, driving and/or safety.. cruise control system”, Sasabuchi [0028].
Claim 13 is rejected like claim 6:
13. (Currently Amended) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions further include to: evaluate the force map to determine if a vehicle occupant is in a high state of acceleration.
Claim 19 is rejected like claim 6:
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 14, further comprising: evaluating the force map to determine if a vehicle occupant is in a high state of acceleration.
Re 21. (New), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy,Sasabuchi teaches The system of claim 6, wherein the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to engage36 safety mechanisms (or likewise “the method of FIG. 5 may be used with other systems/components” [0116] 2nd S) when the vehicle occupant is determined to be in the high state of acceleration.
Claim 23 rejected like claim 21:
23. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions further include to engage safety mechanisms when the vehicle occupant is determined to be in the high state of acceleration.
Claim 25 is rejected like claim 21:
Re 25. (New), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy,Sasabuchi teaches The method of claim 19, further comprising engaging safety mechanisms when the vehicle occupant is determined to be in the high state of acceleration.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1):
PNG
media_image9.png
1300
828
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Re 7. (Currently Amended), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to:
evaluate37 the force map to38 determine if a vehicle occupant (or “you”, BLAESING: pg. 2, 2nd txt blk) is impaired.
BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy does not teach the difference of claim 7 of “is impaired”.
Iwase teaches the difference of claim 7:
(“[0152] The abnormal noise determining means 72 predicts to determine whether or not a level of rattling gear noise, caused in the power distributing mechanism 16, exceeds a predetermined level that is determined on experimental tests in consideration of whether a comfort of a vehicle occupant”) is impaired.
Since BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy suggests other vehicle modes (in addition to driving mode example & anti-theft mode example) monitoring the interior of a vehicle while operating a vehicle:
“depending on the operating mode of the interior monitoring system…For example, it is advisable to place the interior monitoring system less sensitive when driving the motor vehicle than with a function as an anti-theft device.”, BLAESING, pg. 8, last txt blk, 3rd S.
, one of skill in the art of vehicle modes could of/would of referred to other teachings of driving modes and anti-theft modes based on the given example modes taught by BLASING:
Iwase [0040] teaches two driving modes:
[0040] FIG. 8 is a view representing one example of a preliminarily stored shifting diagram, plotted on a two-dimensional coordinate in terms of parameters including a vehicle speed and output torque, based on which the operation is executed whether to execute a shifting in an automatic shifting portion. It also represents one example of a preliminarily stored drive-force source switching diagram having a boundary line between an engine drive region and a motor drive region based on which an engine drive mode and a motor drive mode is switched. Relation between the both diagrams is further represented.
and thus can make BLAESING’s of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy be as Iwase’s predictably recognizing the change “avoiding a comfort of a vehicle occupant from being impaired.”, Iwase [0021] last S, by explicitly:
a) creating a noise program based on Iwase’s fig. 12;
b) installing the noise program into BALESING’s vehicle processor;
c) drive the vehicle making too much noise for a driver while executing said noise (reducing) program comforting said driver that “reduces rattling noise”, Iwase [0021] last S.
Claim 20 is rejected like claim 7:
20. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 14, further comprising: evaluating the force map to determine if a vehicle occupant is impaired.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2010/0004089 A1) as applied in claims 7 and 20 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation:
PNG
media_image10.png
1300
877
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Re 22. (New), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy,Iwase teaches The system of claim 7, wherein the machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further includes causing the processor to engage (i.e., use) safety mechanisms (or likewise “the interior monitoring system as a seat occupancy detection system is used.”, pg. 6, 1st txt blk, 3rd S) when the vehicle occupant remains impaired after a vehicle-issued alert.
BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy,Iwase does not teach the difference of claim 22 of:
(engage) safety (mechanisms)…(the vehicle occupant) remains (impaired) after a vehicle-issued alert.
HIROAKI teach the difference of claim 22 of:
(engage) safety (mechanisms39)…(the vehicle occupant) remains (impaired) after a vehicle-issued alert (or likewise “If the driver does not wake up within the predetermined time T2 (NO in ST28), or if the driver wakes up within T2 and the wakeup is a result of repeated alerts (for example, two times or more) (NO in ST28), For safety first, the alert remains on (NO in ST28) and does not return to the planned driving (ST18).”, pg. 36, 2nd txt blk).
Since BLAESING suggests possibilities of using a plurality of actuators, such as an airbag actuator and an alarm actuator, for a vehicle, pg. 7, penult txt blk:
The output signal of the comparator element 6 acts on the input of a downstream processing system 7 which, depending on the movement determined, possibly controls one or more actuators 8 , 8 ′, 8″. The actuator 8 can be the control module of an airbag deployment unit and the actuator 8 'can be an alarm module.
one of skill in the art of actuators would of/could of looked to other teachings of vehicle actuators, such as HIROAKI’s, pg. 17, 2nd txt blk:
Two actuators 12 (for example, 12L and 12R in FIG. 5) can be provided near the left and right ears of the user. The actuator 12 (12L and / or 12R) can emit an alert sound such as “pipip ...” at the user's ear, or can generate a buzzer vibration like a manner mode of a mobile phone. The actuator related to the alert sound can also be realized as an earphone. The earphone may be provided alone, or may be provided as an intercom together with the microphone 16 described later. A driver or the like sometimes wears an income along with the control cap 200, and sometimes wears the control cap 200 from above the income or wears an income from above the control cap 200. Alternatively, an electric pulse generation circuit (not shown) may be provided in the actuator 12 (12L and / or 12R) to apply a light pulse shock in the vicinity of the left and right temples of the user. When the actuator 12 drives an open / close shutter of a “scent” capsule (for example, 120 in FIG. 9) placed at the user's nose, the care medicine (for example, ammonia) in the capsule is removed by opening the shutter appropriately. Users can smell it. Alternatively, it is also conceivable to put perfume in the capsule and relax a user who is stressed and in tension with a refreshing scent.
and thus make BLAESING’s be as HIROAKI’s seeing the change keeping driving safe.
Claim(s) 24,26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLAESING (DE 19736584 A1) with SEARCH machine translation in view of Kennedy III et al. (US 2025/0020523 A1) as applied in claims 1,2 and 8,9 and 14,15 further in view of Sasabuchi (US 2018/0312164 A1) as applied in claims 6,21 and 13,23 and 19 further in view of HIROAKI (JP 2019-025070 A) with SEARCH machine translation as applied in claim 22:
PNG
media_image11.png
1300
970
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 24 is rejected like claim 22:
Re 24. (New), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy, Sasabuchi, HIROAKI teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions further include to:
evaluate the force map to determine if a vehicle occupant is impaired; and
engage safety mechanisms when the vehicle occupant remains impaired after a vehicle- issued alert.
Claim 26 is rejected like claim 22:
Re 26. (New), BLAESING of the combination of BLAESING,Kennedy, Sasabuchi, HIROAKI teaches The method of claim 19, further comprising engaging safety mechanisms when the vehicle occupant remains impaired after a vehicle-issued alert.
Conclusion
The prior art “nearest to the subject matter defined in the claims” (MPEP 707.05) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action:
Citation
Relevance
Liu et al. (An indentation depth–force sensing wheeled probe for abnormality identification during minimally invasive surgery)
Liu teaches generating a force and depth map, pg. 757, 5.2 Generate the force map and indentation depth map, 3rd S:
“Using Matlab, force signals along all paths were fused to generate a force map as shown in Fig. 10 and the data of the rolling indentation depth were fused together to generate the indenta-tion depth map as shown in Fig. 11.”:
PNG
media_image12.png
1155
689
media_image12.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “generate time-based depth maps…generate a force map” of claim 1.
Katyara et al. (Formulating Intuitive Stack-of-Tasks using Visuo-Tactile Perception for Collaborative Human-Robot Fine Manipulation)
Katyara teaches a depth camera, and point cloud camera, and force mapping:
pg. 5, B. Gesture Monitoring and Posture Evaluation, 1st para, 2nd S:
“The algorithm uses an aligned depth map, that is acquired using a depth camera (tracking camera), running at 5 Hz, to detect a human subject in the environment, and tracks a set of his/her body joints in a 3D space. The algorithm (using deep CNN together with model based fitting) is a pre-trained model to estimate the poses Pi(t) = [XiYiZi]t of 18 joints of the human body, where t represents the reference frame of the detected joints.”
Pg. 6, C. Object Detection and Pose Estimation, 1 para, 1st S:
“To detect objects in the collaborative environment, the raw point cloud of the scene, shown in Fig. 7(a), is captured using the eye-in-hand (detection) camera, running at 25 Hz.”
pgs. 6,7, D. Tactile Sensing and Force Mapping, 1st para, 6th S:
“The mapped force profile of the Franka-Emika gripper is shown in Fig. 9(c)… where fcs =Neural(Dx,Dy,Dz) is the contact force vector”:
PNG
media_image13.png
424
1029
media_image13.png
Greyscale
as the closest to the claimed “depth maps arising from a depth model applied via machine learning…generate time-based point clouds…generate a force map based on force vectors” of claim 1.
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 DENNIS ROSARIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7397. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/DENNIS ROSARIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
1 Applicant’s disclosure: Claim 8’s “A non-transitory computer-readable medium” is directed/interpreted to [0004] and not to [0079]:
[0004] In one embodiment, a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform one or more functions is disclosed. The instructions include instructions to obtain an image of a seat pattern attached to a seat, generate a depth map based on the image of the seat pattern, and assess the depth map to determine a characteristic of an object residing on the seat.
[0079]Furthermore, arrangements described herein may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer-readable media having computer-readable program code embodied, e.g., stored, thereon. Any combination of one or more computer-readable media may be utilized. The computer-readable medium may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium. The phrase “computer-readable storage medium” means a non-transitory storage medium. A computer-readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer-readable storage medium would include the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid-state drive (SSD), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc (DVD), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that may contain or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
The disclosed (at [0079])
“a non-transitory storage medium… may be… infrared” is non-statutory under 35 USC 101 under linguistic-scope (a range of modifier-words (i.e., adjectives) that can be picked by a human-reader (e.g., patent-examiner): e.g.,: an infrared, non-transitory storage medium, possessing both infrared and non-transitory adjectival qualities). However claim 8 in contrast states:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium” and is interpretated as plain meaning in view of applicant’s disclosure at [0004] and thus is statutory under 35 USC 101.
2 generate: Mathematics. to trace (a figure) by the motion of a point, straight line, or curve. (Dictionary.com)
3 map: Mathematics. function. (Dictionary.com)
4 module: Computers. part of a program that performs a distinct function, wherein program is defined: Also called computer program. Digital Technology. a precise sequence of instructions enabling a computer to perform a task; a piece of software.(Dictionary.com)
5 The crossed-out “” “does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation” via MPEP 2143.03 All Claim Limitations Must Be Considered [R-01.2024], 3rd para:
As a general matter, the grammar (e.g., coordinate adjectives: Nordquist: Coordinate Adjectives) and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language (“vehicular monocular”) limits the claim scope (“camera”). Language (“vehicular monocular”) that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives (“vehicular monocular”), the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives (“vehicular”) is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
6 pictorial: relating to, consisting of, or expressed by pictures, wherein picture is defined: a visual representation of something, such as a person or scene, produced on a surface, as in a photograph, painting, etc, wherein photograph is defined: Often shortened to: photo. an image of an object, person, scene, etc, in the form of a print or slide recorded by a camera on photosensitive material
7 tangibly: Derived word form of tangible, wherein tangible is defined: capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.
8 “tangibly” is interpreted as an adverb: Grammar. any member of a class of words that function as modifiers of verbs or clauses, and in some languages, as Latin and English, as modifiers of adjectives, other adverbs, or adverbial phrases, as very in very nice, much in much more impressive, and tomorrow in She'll write to you tomorrow. (Dictionary.com)
9 map: Mathematics. function, wherein function is defined: Mathematics. a relationship in which an input value of a variable has a specifically calculated output value: for example, if the function of x is x 2 , the output will always be the square of whatever the value of x is. f, F (Dictionary.com)
10 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
11 CLAIM SCOPE: “within” has wide claim scope
12 intensity: the quality or condition of being intense, wherein quality is defined: an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute. (Dictionary.com)
13 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
14 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
15 CLAIM SCOPE: “within” has wide claim scope
16 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught.
17 (italics) represent claim limitations already taught
18 to: (used for expressing addition or accompaniment) with. (Dictionary.com)
19 CLAIM SCOPE: “within” has wide claim scope
20 ellipses (…) represent claim limitations already taught.
21 force: Any of various factors that cause a body to change its speed, direction, or shape. Force is a vector quantity, having both magnitude and direction. Contributions of force from different sources can be summed to give the net force at any given point. (Dictionary.com)
22 MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-01.2024], 2nd & 3rd para:
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of ‘the inferences and creative steps,’ or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
23 correspond: to be similar or analogous; be equivalent in function, position, amount, etc. (usually followed byto ), wherein similar is defined: having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way, wherein have is defined: to be related to or be in a certain relation to , wherein related is defined: associated; connected. (Dictionary.com)
24 “deformation” is a modifier of patten
25 “deformation” is a modifier of patten
26 “deformation” is a modifier of patten
27 evaluate: Mathematics. to determine or calculate the numerical value of (a formula, function, relation, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
28 to: (used as the ordinary sign or accompaniment of the infinitive, as in expressing motion, direction, or purpose, in ordinary uses with a substantive object.) (Dictionary.com)
29 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: (used to introduce a single alternative, the other being implied or understood, or some clause or element not involving alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
30 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: used to indicate choices or possibilities (Meriam-Webster.com)
31 “high” is a modifier of “state”
32 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: (used to introduce a single alternative, the other being implied or understood, or some clause or element not involving alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
33 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: used to indicate choices or possibilities (Meriam-Webster.com)
34 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: (used to introduce a single alternative, the other being implied or understood, or some clause or element not involving alternatives). (Dictionary.com)
35 if: whether, wherein whether is defined: used to indicate choices or possibilities (Meriam-Webster.com)
36 engage: to secure the services of; employ, wherein employ is defined: to use as a means (Dictionary.com)
37 evaluate: Mathematics. to determine or calculate the numerical value of (a formula, function, relation, etc.). (Dictionary.com)
38 to: (used as the ordinary sign or accompaniment of the infinitive, as in expressing motion, direction, or purpose, in ordinary uses with a substantive object.) (Dictionary.com)
39 35 USC 112(f) language: mechanism: the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished (Dictionary.com): 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked in claim 22.
Prosecution Insights