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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vehicle vibration detection module” in claims 6 and 7
“temporal behavior analysis module” in claims 6 and 10
“spatial characteristic analysis module” in claims 6 and 14
“presence detection unit” in claims 6 and 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Contingent Limitations:
The Examiner would like to point out that method claims 6 and 10 are method claims which includes contingent limitations. The limitation of “providing an alert” is contingent on the step of “if a body is detected” (Claim 6). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this method claim, the alert does not need to be provided. Therefore, this method claim is being interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation where no alert is provided (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations). Similarly, claim 20 recites the feature of “associating the child sized target with a pet” which is contingent on the step of “if increased activity is detected”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of this method claim, the feature of “associating the child sized target with a pet” does not need occur. (SEE MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations).
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites, “providing presence detection unit” which should recite, “providing a presence detection unit”.
Claim 6 recites, “transferring data from radar to processor” which should recite, “transferring data from a radar to processor”.
Claim 9 should include a space before the “a” in “identifyinga”.
Claim 10 recites the acronym MTI which has not been defined. All acronyms should be defined at their first instance in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-18 and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each pixel (θ, ɸ)" in "constructing a two dimensional matrix with each pixel (θ, ɸ) assigned a value Imax equal to the intensity of the identified maximum voxel.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as (θ, ɸ) has been introduced as angular coordinates not pixels.
The term “high intensity” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high intensity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the processor unit" in "the processor unit collating a series of complex values for each voxel; ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “processor unit” has been introduced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the complex plane" in "for each voxel determining a center point in the complex plane;". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “complex plane” has been introduced.
The term “smooth waveform” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth waveform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “the largest number of voxels” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether “the largest number of voxels” is referring to the voxels with highest intensity or something else. It is unclear what “the largest number of voxels” represents.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the value" in “and selecting the value closest to an infant reference value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “an infant reference value” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “an infant reference value” represents.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein the step of distinguishing between a child and a pet comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 20 depends on claim 6 where no “step of distinguishing between a child and a pet” has been introduced in claim 6.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein the step of transmitting a pet stimulation signal insignificant to humans comprises”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 21 depends on claim 6 where no “step of transmitting a pet stimulation signal insignificant to humans” has been introduced in claim 6.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xiang et al. (US 20240402335 A1), hereinafter Xiang.
Regarding claim 6, Xiang discloses
A method for detecting the presence of bodies in a vehicle cabin (see Abstract, “The present invention relates to a method for determining occupancy inside a motor vehicle using a presence sensor.”) comprising:
providing a radar module (see paragraph 0051-0052, “In this case, these waves are electromagnetic waves 11. The transmitter/receiver device in this case comprises an antenna (not shown) designed to transmit the electromagnetic waves 11 and at least one receiver (not shown) designed to receive reflected electromagnetic waves 12 after the reflection of the electromagnetic waves 11, and particularly after reflection from an occupant 50…The transmitter/receiver device in this case is more specifically a radar (radio detection and ranging) using millimeter electromagnetic waves.”);
providing a vehicle vibration detection module (see paragraph 0063, “The accelerometer is thus adapted for determining a value representative of an amount of vibration of the vehicle 40. This value representative of an amount of vibration of the vehicle 40, referred to below as the vibration value V, is for example expressed in milli-g, that is to say in thousandths of g, where the value of g is approximately 9.8 m/s.sup.2”);
providing a temporal behavior analysis module (see Fig. 3-4, paragraphs 0040-0041, “FIG. 3 is a graph representing a temporal change in occupancy which is determined using the method of FIG. 2…FIG. 4 is a graph representing a temporal change, concomitant with the temporal change in occupancy of FIG. 3, of a value representative of a quantity of vibration which is determined according to the method of FIG. 2.”);
providing a spatial characteristic analysis module (see paragraph 0073, “In practice, the system 1 determines the occupancy E by detecting a shift or movement of an occupant 50, including respiration or heartbeats. This detection is precise because of the use of short electromagnetic waves, but is sensitive to the vibrations of the vehicle 40.”);
providing presence detection unit (see 0087, “As shown in FIG. 2, the step e1 of periodic determination of the occupancy E comprises the following substeps: [0088] a substep e11 of transmitting the electromagnetic wave 11 via the antenna; [0089] a substep e12 of receiving the reflected electromagnetic wave 12 via the sensor, [0090] a substep e13 of analyzing the reflected electromagnetic wave 12, by means of the computer 30, to determine the occupancy E.”);
at least one transmitter antenna transmitting electromagnetic waves into the vehicle cabin (see paragraphs 0051-0052, “In this case, these waves are electromagnetic waves 11. The transmitter/receiver device in this case comprises an antenna (not shown) designed to transmit the electromagnetic waves 11 and at least one receiver (not shown) designed to receive reflected electromagnetic waves 12 after the reflection of the electromagnetic waves 11, and particularly after reflection from an occupant 50…The transmitter/receiver device in this case is more specifically a radar (radio detection and ranging) using millimeter electromagnetic waves.”);
at least one receiver antenna receiving electromagnetic waves reflected by objects within the vehicle cabin (see paragraphs 0051-0052, “In this case, these waves are electromagnetic waves 11. The transmitter/receiver device in this case comprises an antenna (not shown) designed to transmit the electromagnetic waves 11 and at least one receiver (not shown) designed to receive reflected electromagnetic waves 12 after the reflection of the electromagnetic waves 11, and particularly after reflection from an occupant 50…The transmitter/receiver device in this case is more specifically a radar (radio detection and ranging) using millimeter electromagnetic waves.”);
transferring data from radar to processor (see paragraph 0054-0055, “In particular, the computer 30 is programmed to control the transmitter/receiver device, notably for controlling the transmission of the electromagnetic waves 11…By analyzing the reflected electromagnetic wave 12 captured by the sensor of the transmitter/receiver device, the computer 30 determines, in this case for each seat 41, the occupancy E, indicating whether the seat 41 is occupied or vacant. Occupancy E may also be determined for the trunk of the vehicle 40, and an indication may be given as to whether an occupant 50 is present in the trunk.”);
the vehicle vibration detection module generating a vehicle vibration index (see paragraph 0063, “The accelerometer is thus adapted for determining a value representative of an amount of vibration of the vehicle 40. This value representative of an amount of vibration of the vehicle 40, referred to below as the vibration value V, is for example expressed in milli-g, that is to say in thousandths of g, where the value of g is approximately 9.8 m/s.sup.2”);
the temporal behavior analysis module generating temporal movement indices (see Fig. 3-4, paragraphs 0040-0041, “FIG. 3 is a graph representing a temporal change in occupancy which is determined using the method of FIG. 2…FIG. 4 is a graph representing a temporal change, concomitant with the temporal change in occupancy of FIG. 3.”);
the spatial characteristic analysis module generating spatial feature indices (see paragraph 0073, “In practice, the system 1 determines the occupancy E by detecting a shift or movement of an occupant 50, including respiration or heartbeats. This detection is precise because of the use of short electromagnetic waves, but is sensitive to the vibrations of the vehicle 40.”)
transferring a feature vector to the presence detection unit (see 0087, “As shown in FIG. 2, the step e1 of periodic determination of the occupancy E comprises the following substeps: [0088] a substep e11 of transmitting the electromagnetic wave 11 via the antenna; [0089] a substep e12 of receiving the reflected electromagnetic wave 12 via the sensor, [0090] a substep e13 of analyzing the reflected electromagnetic wave 12, by means of the computer 30, to determine the occupancy E.”);
the presence detection unit processing the feature vector (see 0087, “As shown in FIG. 2, the step e1 of periodic determination of the occupancy E comprises the following substeps: [0088] a substep e11 of transmitting the electromagnetic wave 11 via the antenna; [0089] a substep e12 of receiving the reflected electromagnetic wave 12 via the sensor, [0090] a substep e13 of analyzing the reflected electromagnetic wave 12, by means of the computer 30, to determine the occupancy E.”); and
if a body is detected then providing an alert (see paragraph 0123-0124, “Finally, as shown in FIG. 2, the method here comprises a step e5 of transmitting a signal based on the occupancy E. The signal is here a warning signal, for example an audible signal intended for an occupant 50 or for the holder of the keys of the vehicle 40…The signal indicates, for example, that an occupant 50 is present in the stationary, locked vehicle, or that an occupant 50 needs to put his safety belt on.”; NOTE: this feature does not need to occur as it is a contingent limitation within a method claim, see claim interpretation section above).
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (US 20240402335 A1) in view of Chayat et al. (US 20190254544 A1), hereinafter Chayat.
Regarding claim 10, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 6 wherein the step of the temporal behavior analysis module generating temporal movement indices comprises:
Chayat discloses,
identifying clusters of high intensity voxels within three dimensional image data (see Fig. 4B, steps 31b and 32B);
for each cluster, the processor unit collating a series of complex values for each voxel (see Fig. 4B, step 33B, further see paragraph 0074, “FIG. 4b is a flowchart elaborating the RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 30) in an embodiment of the invention (separate from the embodiment described by FIG. 4a). In step 31b a 3D image is produced (item 32b), in a manner similar to the description in [0065]. In step 33b, the 3D image is decomposed using algorithms similar to the ones described in [0068] and [0069], producing a set of elements, each described by a 3D image and a temporal pattern consisting of complex phasors (item 34b). In step 35b each temporal pattern is processed using a phase detecting procedure similar to the one described in [0066] and [0067] to produce displacement data for each element (item 36b).”);
for each voxel determining a center point in the complex plane (see Fig. 4B further see paragraph 0074, “FIG. 4b is a flowchart elaborating the RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 30) in an embodiment of the invention (separate from the embodiment described by FIG. 4a). In step 31b a 3D image is produced (item 32b), in a manner similar to the description in [0065]. In step 33b, the 3D image is decomposed using algorithms similar to the ones described in [0068] and [0069], producing a set of elements, each described by a 3D image and a temporal pattern consisting of complex phasors (item 34b). In step 35b each temporal pattern is processed using a phase detecting procedure similar to the one described in [0066] and [0067] to produce displacement data for each element (item 36b).”);
determining a phase value for each voxel in each frame (see Fig. 4B further see paragraph 0074, “FIG. 4b is a flowchart elaborating the RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 30) in an embodiment of the invention (separate from the embodiment described by FIG. 4a). In step 31b a 3D image is produced (item 32b), in a manner similar to the description in [0065]. In step 33b, the 3D image is decomposed using algorithms similar to the ones described in [0068] and [0069], producing a set of elements, each described by a 3D image and a temporal pattern consisting of complex phasors (item 34b). In step 35b each temporal pattern is processed using a phase detecting procedure similar to the one described in [0066] and [0067] to produce displacement data for each element (item 36b).”;
generating a smooth waveform representing phase changes over time for each voxel in each frame (see Fig. 4B further see paragraph 0074, “FIG. 4b is a flowchart elaborating the RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 30) in an embodiment of the invention (separate from the embodiment described by FIG. 4a). In step 31b a 3D image is produced (item 32b), in a manner similar to the description in [0065]. In step 33b, the 3D image is decomposed using algorithms similar to the ones described in [0068] and [0069], producing a set of elements, each described by a 3D image and a temporal pattern consisting of complex phasors (item 34b). In step 35b each temporal pattern is processed using a phase detecting procedure similar to the one described in [0066] and [0067] to produce displacement data for each element (item 36b).”;
selecting a subset of voxels indicative of a breathing pattern (see paragraph 0077, “In step 45, the temporal displacement data of the elements within each human target are used to produce a spectral power distribution model, describing periodicities in the target's movement. In an embodiment of the invention, Welch's method is used to produce the spectral power density model (a non-parametric spectral model). In another embodiment, an (Auto Regressive Moving Average) ARMA model (a parametric spectral model) is used to produce the spectral power density model. Physiological parameters are estimated for human targets, including the breathing rate, heart rate and heart rate variability. Breathing rate and heart rate are estimated from the location of peaks in the spectral power distribution. In an embodiment, using Welch's method, heart rate variability is estimated from the width of the spectral peak corresponding to the heartrate. In another embodiment, using an ARMA model, the heart rate variability is estimated from the parametric representation of the ARMA model itself.”, further see paragraph 0092, “The sets of voxels over which the movement is characterized can originate from a target tracking function, or it can originate form a priori knowledge, such as the candidate seating locations of persons in a car. The set of voxels may encompass multiple people, where the set of movement modes would encompass, for example, the respiration patterns of those multiple people.”); and
calculating temporal movement indices (see paragraph 0077, “In step 45, the temporal displacement data of the elements within each human target are used to produce a spectral power distribution model, describing periodicities in the target's movement. In an embodiment of the invention, Welch's method is used to produce the spectral power density model (a non-parametric spectral model). In another embodiment, an (Auto Regressive Moving Average) ARMA model (a parametric spectral model) is used to produce the spectral power density model. Physiological parameters are estimated for human targets, including the breathing rate, heart rate and heart rate variability. Breathing rate and heart rate are estimated from the location of peaks in the spectral power distribution. In an embodiment, using Welch's method, heart rate variability is estimated from the width of the spectral peak corresponding to the heartrate. In another embodiment, using an ARMA model, the heart rate variability is estimated from the parametric representation of the ARMA model itself.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chayat into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose physiological detection of occupants within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently differentiate between occupants in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 10
Chayat discloses,
wherein the step of calculating temporal movement indices comprises calculating a spectral peak index (see paragraph 0077, “Physiological parameters are estimated for human targets, including the breathing rate, heart rate and heart rate variability. Breathing rate and heart rate are estimated from the location of peaks in the spectral power distribution. In an embodiment, using Welch's method, heart rate variability is estimated from the width of the spectral peak corresponding to the heartrate”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chayat into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose physiological detection of occupants within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently differentiate between occupants (humans vs. pets) in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 12, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 10
Chayat discloses,
wherein the step of calculating temporal movement i dices comprises calculating a respiration per minute (RPM) index (see paragraph 0082, “As can be seen, the elements represent motions which have different periodicity from one another. Each element is then used to calculate the corresponding rate parameter: breathing rate (measured in RPM—respirations per minute), and heart rate (measured in BPM—beats per minute).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chayat into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose physiological detection of occupants within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently differentiate between occupants (humans vs. pets) in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 10
Chayat discloses,
wherein the step of calculating temporal movement indices comprises calculating a circle fit index (see Fig. 8e which depicts a circle fit index, further see paragraph 0090, “FIG. 8e shows a screenshot of a user interface, used as an output of the system. On the left side is an image produced by filtering and then recombining the spatial patterns shown in FIG. 8b, 8c, 8d. On the right side is a graphical summarization of the occupancy state reported by the system, correctly identifying the two adults and the infant in the correct positions. The classification of passengers into adults and infants is done by examining the spatial pattern for each detected element.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chayat into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose physiological detection of occupants within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently differentiate between occupants in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 6
Chayat discloses,
further comprising distinguishing between a child and a pet (see paragraph 0076, “FIG. 5 is a flowchart elaborating the TARGET PROCESSING step from FIG. 2 (step 40) in an embodiment of the invention. In step 41, elements are grouped into targets, representing detected physical objects, by examining the spatial pattern of each element, producing a target list (item 42). In step 43 targets are classified, giving each target a label such as “background” (for example parts of a car interior), “adult”, “infant”, “pet” etc. (item 44). This classification is done by examining both the spatial pattern and the temporal displacement data for each element within the target.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chayat into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose physiological detection of occupants within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently differentiate between occupants (children vs. pets) in a vehicle.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang et al. (US 20240402335 A1) in view of SHOULDICE et al. (US 20200383580 A1), hereinafter SHOULDICE.
Regarding claim 20, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 6 wherein the step of distinguishing between a child and a pet comprises:
(NOTE: this feature does not need to occur as it is a contingent limitation within a method claim, see claim interpretation section above).
SHOULDICE discloses,
identifying a child sized target (see paragraph 0249, “As previously described, by detecting respiration and heart rate in a recently vacated or intended vacant vehicle, alerts can be generated by the processing device if a child or baby or pet is left accidentally in the vehicle when unattended. The vehicular processing device may then generate one or more a vehicle control signal(s) to automatically immobilize the vehicle (to prevent stealing) or engage systems such as ventilation, cooling or heating in order to protect the occupant until help arrives.”);
transmitting a pet stimulation signal insignificant to humans (see paragraph 0116-0117, “Many vehicles contain audio devices that are capable of emitting and recording sounds in the low frequency ultrasonic range at just above the human hearing threshold—e.g., vehicle infotainment systems. Such devices and systems can be adapted to perform physiological sensing of the vehicle's occupants using low frequency ultrasonic techniques. Such sensing may be performed without impacting the original intended functions of the standard audio systems...Such acoustic (either audible or inaudible) sensing technology can be used for a wide variety of purposes including pro-active health management, medical devices, and security functions.”, further see paragraph 0062, “Therefore, for most people, it is possible to use signals in the range of 17/18 to 24 kHz and remain inaudible. For younger people that can hear 18 kHz but not 19 kHz, a band of 19 kHz to say 21 kHz could be employed. It is noted that some domestic pets may be able to hear higher frequencies (e.g., dogs up to 60 kHz and cats up to 79 kHz).”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SHOULDICE into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose occupant detection within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently and conveniently differentiate between occupants in a vehicle.
Regarding claim 21, Xiang discloses [Note: what Xiang fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 6 wherein the step of transmitting a pet stimulation signal insignificant to humans comprises
SHOULDICE discloses,
transmitting a pet stimulation signal at a frequency inaudible to human ears (see paragraph 0116-0117, “Many vehicles contain audio devices that are capable of emitting and recording sounds in the low frequency ultrasonic range at just above the human hearing threshold—e.g., vehicle infotainment systems. Such devices and systems can be adapted to perform physiological sensing of the vehicle's occupants using low frequency ultrasonic techniques. Such sensing may be performed without impacting the original intended functions of the standard audio systems...Such acoustic (either audible or inaudible) sensing technology can be used for a wide variety of purposes including pro-active health management, medical devices, and security functions.”, further see paragraph 0062, “Therefore, for most people, it is possible to use signals in the range of 17/18 to 24 kHz and remain inaudible. For younger people that can hear 18 kHz but not 19 kHz, a band of 19 kHz to say 21 kHz could be employed. It is noted that some domestic pets may be able to hear higher frequencies (e.g., dogs up to 60 kHz and cats up to 79 kHz).”);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by SHOULDICE into the invention of Xiang. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose occupant detection within vehicles. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently and conveniently differentiate between occupants in a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claims 7-9 and 14-18, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 7-9 and 14-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
RAZ et al. (US 20220067410 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as is discloses the detection of occupants in a vehicle (see Abstract, “The system includes an in-cabin sensor comprising at least one or more of an image sensor, depth sensor and micro-vibration sensor for capturing sensory data of the vehicle cabin including pre-crash data, during-crash and post-crash.”).
SHAKER et al. (US 20210197834 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as is discloses the detection of occupants in a vehicle using radar (see paragraphs 0222-0223, “The system is configured to be mounted on the dashboard of a vehicle and transmits signals that are reflected by the upper body of the vehicle operator. The received signals are then processed to determine the direction the operator is facing and to assess if the operator is distracted while driving the vehicle…Mmwave radar devices also generate a 3D scattered image of the interior of the vehicle, which gives more spatial information than optical imaging, which generates a 2D image, and are intended to allow for more precise classifications given more identifiable information.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights