DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of the response, filed 9 October 2025, with respect to the interpretation under 112(f) and the 112(b) rejection of claim 10 in view of the amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation under 112(f) and the 112(b) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 10-12 of the response the applicant argues the rejection of the independent claims, specifically claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The applicant’s main argument is that Julian is not for theft protection, and thus has nothing to do with an occupant that is not authorized to operate the vehicle. The applicant continues by arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use facial recognition since Nambara is already triggered by its physical intrusion system, and that the triggering would be used to disable features not related to blocking the view of the occupant from operation of the vehicle. Further, the applicant continues on page 11 that replacing or supplementing Nambara’s theft monitor with Julian’s facial recognition would require substantial modification of Nambara’s system architecture and would change it fundamental principle of operation from detecting theft indicators to performing biometric authentication. The office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Julian is not for theft protection and that that the triggering would be used to disable features not related to blocking the view of the occupant from operation of the vehicle, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Nambara merely states on page 29 of the provided document [page 2 of the translation portion], lines 28-35, that “The theft monitor 40a is, for example,…” and Nambara also discloses a camera for detection of the user’s face, see page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], lines 11-17: “The user state monitor 41b captures a user state on the driver's seat 20 in the passenger compartment 2a shown in FIG. 1 using an image sensor, thereby detecting the user state and outputting an image signal.” Thus, there is no major modification of the system of Nambara to include facial detection for determining an authorized user that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to easily accomplish. Further, the entire teachings of Julian are not being applied to be incorporated into Nambara, but rather the mere teaching of using facial recognition. Further, one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the benefit of using facial detection, as erroneous theft detection in the system of Nambara would be avoidable. For example, before modification, if an authorized user shakes their car too much while getting in, then the system of the Nambara would erroneously detect that the user is trying to steal the car. However, in the combination, including facial recognition for determining that the user is the authorized user, would prevent such an erroneous detection from taking place, and thus improve the accuracy of detecting an unauthorized occupant. This combination would not change the fundamental principle of operation from detecting theft indicators to performing biometric authentication, because the biometric authentication would just be a part of the theft detection.
Therefore, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambara et al. (JP 6589774 B2) in view of Julian (EP 4032728 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nambara et al. disclose a method, comprising:
identifying a vehicle start (Page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], lines 18-20: “The power switch is operated by the user in the passenger compartment 2a to start the internal combustion engine or the motor generator of the vehicle 2.”);
detecting a face of an occupant in response to identifying the vehicle start (Page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], lines 11-17: “The user state monitor 41b captures a user state on the driver's seat 20 in the passenger compartment 2a shown in FIG. 1 using an image sensor, thereby detecting the user state and outputting an image signal. In particular, the user state monitor 41b of the present embodiment functions as a “state detector” that detects a line-of-sight related state related to the user's line of sight. Here, the line-of-sight related state includes, for example, an eyeball state (specifically, a pupil state), an eyeball position (specifically, a pupil position), a face direction, a face position, and a body direction. One or more types.”);
determining whether the occupant is associated with an authorized occupant for the vehicle (Figure 8, S10 and page 34 of the provided document [page 7 of the translation portion], lines 5-9: “In S10 of the display control flow, the current state of the vehicle 2 is determined between a normal state in which the vehicle 2 is driven by an authorized user and an abnormal state in which the vehicle 2 is stolen and driven by an unauthorized user. At this time, whether the current state of the vehicle 2 is a normal state or an abnormal state is determined based on the output signal of the theft monitor 40a.”);
controlling a HUD system to display normal HUD information in response to determining that the occupant is associated with the authorized occupant for the vehicle (Figure 6, Figure 8, S20 and page 34 of the provided document [page 7 of the translation portion], lines 9-15: If it is determined in S10 that the vehicle 2 is in a normal state, the user in the passenger compartment 2a is assumed to be a regular user, and the process proceeds to S20. In S20, the normal mode is executed. In the normal mode, the normal image 568 currently provided to the regular user is selected from the images 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, and 567, and the virtual image display state of the selected normal image 568 is controlled. Here, during the normal mode, by receiving an output signal from the display setting switch 41a, a state in which an input from the authorized user to the display setting switch 41a is continued.”); and
controlling the HUD display to perform windshield view blocking in response to determining that the occupant is not associated with the authorized occupant to operate the vehicle (Figures 7 and 22-27, Figure 8, S30 and page 34 of the provided document [page 7 of the translation portion], lines 41-47: “In the normal mode, after executing S208 in this way, the process returns to S10 shown in FIG. When it is determined in S10 that the vehicle 2 is in an abnormal state with respect to S20 in the normal mode, the user in the passenger compartment 2a is determined to be an unauthorized user and the process proceeds to S30. In S30, the abnormal mode is executed. In this abnormal mode, the virtual image display state of the abnormal image 560 is controlled. Here, during the abnormal mode, the state of ignoring the input to the display setting switch 41a by an unauthorized user is continued by blocking the reception of the output signal from the display setting switch 41a.” See also page 41 of the provided document [page 14 of the translation portion], lines 30-32: “Although a plurality of embodiments of the present invention have been described above, the present invention is not construed as being limited to these embodiments, and various embodiments and combinations can be made without departing from the scope of the present invention. Can be applied.”).
While Nambara et al. disclose of detecting an authorized/unauthorized occupant for the vehicle by using a theft monitor that detects unauthorized opening of the door outside the passenger compartment, unauthorized entry into the passenger compartment, unauthorized replacement of electrical components mounted on the vehicle, and the impact and shaking of the vehicle associated with the theft (Page 29 of the provided document [page 2 of the translation portion], lines 28-35.),
Nambara et al. fail to explicitly teach:
performing facing recognition on the detected face; and
determining whether the detected face is associated with an authorized occupant for the vehicle.
Julian disclose a method comprising:
detecting a face of an occupant in response to identifying the vehicle start (Figure 12, 1220);
performing facing recognition on the detected face (Figure 12, 1220); and
determining whether the detected face is associated with an authorized occupant for the vehicle (Figure 12, 1230, yes or no).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the facial recognition teachings of Julian to perform the determination of whether a user is authorized or unauthorized to operate the vehicle in the method taught by Nambara et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to improve the accuracy of detecting an unauthorized occupant so as to reduce erroneous theft detection.
Regarding claim 2, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a notification in response to determining that the detected face is not associated with the authorized occupant for the vehicle (In the combination, Julian: Figure 12, alert 1275 is a notification.).
Regarding claim 3, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 1, wherein displaying one or more blocking elements or features comprises displaying one or more display elements on the windshield to block a view through the windshield in response to determining that the detected face is not associated with the authorized occupant for the vehicle (In the combination, Nambara et al.: Figures 22-27).
Regarding claim 4, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 1, wherein controlling the HUD display to perform windshield view blocking comprises one of obscuring or blurring a view through the windshield using one or more AR/VR HUD display elements (Nambara et al.: Figures 22-27).
Regarding claim 5, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more AR/VR HUD display elements comprise a colored display element or a high intensity display element (Nambara et al.: See page 32 of the provided document [page 5 of the translation portion], lines 11-17: “The abnormal image 560 is within the display range R corresponding to the configuration of the HUD 50 in the first display area A1 shown in FIG. 7, that is, within the abnormal range Ra in the drawing or the normal upper limit range Rn (not shown). A virtual image is displayed. In particular, the abnormal image 560 of the present embodiment is formed in a so-called solid paint shape so that the entire display range R is filled with a single color. At this time, in this embodiment, the display color C of the abnormal image 560 is set to white as an achromatic color having the maximum luminance by the projector 50a, as schematically shown by a white figure in FIG.”).
Regarding claim 7, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 4, wherein a portion of the windshield is obscured or blocked (Nambara et al.: Figures 22-27).
Regarding claim 8, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the face of the occupant comprises imaging a face of the occupant using a camera mounted within the vehicle (Julian: Figure 12, step 1210 and Figure 1, camera 104. See paragraph [0072] “a backward-facing camera 104 (which may be referred to as an inward-facing camera or driver-facing camera when deployed in a vehicle).”).
Regarding claim 9, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Nambara et al. and Julian also disclose a HUD system, comprising:
a camera configured to acquire a facial image of an occupant of a vehicle (Nambara et al.: Figure 2, 41b and page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], lines 11-17, and Julian: Figure 1, camera 104. See paragraph [0072] “a backward-facing camera 104 (which may be referred to as an inward-facing camera or driver-facing camera when deployed in a vehicle).”;
a HUD display (Nambara et al.: Figures 1-2, 50 and page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], line 43 to page 31 [page 4 of the translation portion], line 6.); and
a HUD control arrangement (Nambara et al.: Figures 1-2, 54 and page 30 of the provided document [page 3 of the translation portion], lines 43-45.).
Regarding claim 10, please refer to the rejection of claim 2, and furthermore Julian also discloses wherein the notification comprises an alert communicated via a telematic system (Paragraph [0184], where the message generator is a notification system wherein the notification comprises an alert communicated via a telematic system.) or other alert indicating to an external environment surrounding the vehicle of an unauthorized occupant.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nambara et al. (JP 6589774 B2) in view of Julian (EP 4032728 A1) and further in view of La Placa (DE 10 2018 006 279 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nambara et al. and Julian disclose the method of claim 4.
Nambara et al. and Julian fail to teach wherein an entirety of the windshield is obscured or blocked.
La Placa disclose wherein an entirety of a windshield is obscured or blocked from an unauthorized user (Figure 1 shows that the entirety of a windshield is blocked when an unauthorized occupant is detected.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of La Placa to block the entirety of the windshield in the method taught by the combination of Nambara et al. and Julian. The motivation to combine would have been in order to improve theft deterrence by eliminating the possibility of the unauthorized user from seeing out the windshield past the blocking display image.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
4 November 2025