CTFR 18/695,065 CTFR 84569 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. 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 2. Applicant’s arguments filed 5-11-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection(s). Claim Objections 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 3. Claim s 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 4. 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porikli et al., US 2019/0213406 in view of Moidunny, US 2023/0001930, and in further view of Herbst, US 2022/0130155 . Regarding claim 1, Porikli teaches of a driver surveillance apparatus (See Fig. 1, 105; [0060]-[0063]) comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions (See [0058]-[0061]) to: acquire an image in which a driver of a moving body is captured (See Fig.1, 105; Fig.10; [0060], [0082], [0097], [0103], [0110], and [0119]); extract feature data about a body of the driver captured in the image, and detect at least one of a predetermined pose or a predetermined movement, based on the feature data the feature data including information about hands (See [0110]-[0115] and [0153] extracting data of the images and detecting predetermined movement; [0005]-0025]; [0063]-[0070] hands), detect a predetermined object in the image (See Fig.10; [0067], [0110]-[0115] and [0153] detecting objects such as a cup or a phone); and detect the predetermined behavior of the driver, based on a detection result of at least one of the predetermined pose or the predetermined movement and a detection result of the predetermined object (See [0067], [0110]-[0115] and [0153] detecting predetermined behavior such as drinking from a cup and/or texting). Porikli is silent with respect to the feature data including information about a head, a neck, shoulders, elbows, and knees. However, in the same field of endeavor, Moidunny teaches of the feature data including information about the drivers head, neck, shoulders, elbows, and knees (See [0054]-[0074]] teaches of using the feature data including the skeleton model having point of a head, neck, shoulders, elbows, and knees to determine a pose). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Porikli to have incorporated the teachings of Moidunny for the mere benefit of being able to better characterize ones body pose and predicted movements. The combination of Porikli and Moidunny is silent with respect to determining whether to detect the predetermined behavior of the driver based on whether the moving body is moving. However, in the same field of endeavor, Herbst teaches of determining whether to detect the predetermined behavior of the driver based on whether the moving body is moving (See [0055]-[0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Porikli and Moidunny to have incorporated the teachings of Herbst for the mere benefit of conserving resources of only having to perform the detections under certain conditions. Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to detect a keypoint of the body of the driver, and extract the feature data, based on the detected keypoint (See Porikli, [0107]-[0110], [0121]-[0135] key feature detection such as a hand and extracting data associated with to determine movements/behaviors). Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to detect the predetermined behavior by the driver, based on predetermined behavior information in which a combination of at least one of the predetermined pose or a predetermined movement and the predetermined object is associated with each of a plurality of pieces of the predetermined behavior (See Porikli, [0024]; [0110]-[0120] which discloses determining behavior through multiple facets of the object, movement, flow, etc.). Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to store reference data, and verify the extracted feature data with the reference data (See Porikli, [0024]-[0025] comparing stored object and motion in memory to the determined objects and motions to determine the activity). Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an input comprising reference data (See Porikli, [0151], which discloses of additional pre-trained hand models which are loaded into memory which reads on additional reference data that is stored). Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to acquire data generated by a sensor mounted on the moving body (See Porikli, Fig.1, 105; [0060]-[0063]), and detect the predetermined behavior of the driver, based on a detection result of at least one of the predetermined pose or the predetermined movement, a detection result of the predetermined object, and data generated by the sensor (See Porikli, [0060]-[0063] and [0110]-[0115] and [0153] which discloses of the detecting of the movement and object which is data generated/captured by the camera). Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches of the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the driver surveillance apparatus is a vehicle-mounted apparatus (See Porikli ,Fig.1, 105; [0060]-[0061]). Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection in of claim 1. Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of 5. Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3. Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5 . 07-21-aia AIA 6. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porikli et al., US 2019/0213406, in view of Moidunny, US 2023/0001930, in further view of Herbst, US 2022/0130155, and in view of Aoi et al., US 2018/0326992 . Regarding claim 8, Porikli in view of Moidunny in view of Herbst teaches the driver surveillance apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to detect the predetermined behavior of the driver (See Porikli, [0110]-[0115]). Porikli in view of Moidunny in view of Herbst is silent with respect to detecting when the driver does not hold a handle of the moving body with both hands. However, in the same field of endeavor, Aoi teaches of detecting when the driver does not hold a handle of the moving body with both hands (See [0169]-[0176] which discloses of detecting whether the driver is holding the steering wheel with both hands). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Porikli, Moidunny, and Herbstto have incorporated the teachings of Aoi for the mere benefit of being able to assess the users activity and state for/to address emergency and safety concerns . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Contact 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /Ricky Chin/ Primary Examiner AU 2424 (571) 270-3753 Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 2 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 3 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 4 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 5 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 6 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 7 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/695,065 Page 8 Art Unit: 2424
Prosecution Insights