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 .
The Office Action mailed on 01/22/2026 has been vacated and replaced by the current Office Action.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 11-30 filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but the argument has been rendered moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the pending claims.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 9919648 B1) in view of KOBAYASHI (US 20170213098 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Pedersen teaches a method for improving the performance of an image recognition system, the method comprising: obtaining information about a use of a data carrier by a user (Figs. 1-6, col. 7: lines 49-52, 63-67: determining when the driver (103) of the moving vehicle (100) is using a telecommunication device such as a cellular telephone for voice or text communication while the vehicle is moving); activating an RGB function of the image recognition system (col. 10, lines 53-58: the device control unit (300) may include an optical camera (305) for capturing images of the driver of a moving vehicle to assist in the determination of situations where the driver is using or attempting to use a telecommunications device such as a cellular telephone while the vehicle is moving. Col. 11, lines 1-9: The optical cameras (305) of FIG. 3 may also be used with image analysis software to perform such tasks as facial recognition to identify particular drivers. Col. 20, lines 21-30: Image analysis software implemented in the device control unit (102/300) of FIGS. 1 and 3 may be used to analyze images of the driver to verify that the driver is holding the telecommunications device or cellular telephone (1003) to his ear as illustrated in FIG. 10). Note that the image analysis in Pedersen requires activation of the system; evaluating the determined information (col. 25, lines 23-57: decision as to whether or not the driver may be texting on his or her wireless device or cellular telephone is made in decision element. Col. 20, lines 21-30: Image analysis software implemented in the device control unit (102/300) of FIGS. 1 and 3 may be used to analyze images of the driver to verify that the driver is holding the telecommunications device or cellular telephone (1003) to his ear as illustrated in FIG. 10); and taking a measure on the basis of the evaluated information (col. 20, line 64 to col. 21, line 8: when the driver (1001) is using the telecommunication device or cellular telephone for texting… issue warnings or commands to inhibit such use. See also col. 25, lines 57).
Pedersen does not explicitly teach determining information presented on the data carrier, carried out by means of the activated RGB function of the image recognition system.
However, KOBAYASHI teaches determining information presented on the data carrier, carried out by means of the activated RGB function of the image recognition system (¶0017-0018: Camera 12 may be positioned to capture images of text within the vehicle passenger compartment that is displayed on a personal electronic device or printed on paper…The images captured by camera 12 may be transmitted to text recognition module 14 which may recognize the alphanumeric characters (or other written characters) in the images. Text recognition module 14 may transmit the recognized characters to processor 18, which may interpret the recognized characters as words, commands or menu selections, for example).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen’s image recognition system by incorporating the teaching of KOBAYASHI, in order to obtain an automatic information entry into the vehicle while using hand-held devices (KOBAYASHI: ¶0004).
Regarding claim 13, Pedersen teaches wherein the obtainment of the information about a use comprises determination of a position of the data carrier relative to the image recognition system (col. 20, line 64 to col. 21, line 5: when the driver (1001) is using the telecommunication device or cellular telephone for texting, the actual device may be positioned at the location indicated for device (1004) shown in FIG. 10. In some cases, the combination of the audio signals received from the directional beamforming antenna array discussed above together with the image captured by the camera may be conclusive evidence that the driver (1001) is indeed talking over these telecommunications device or cellular telephone (1003)).
Regarding claim 15, Pedersen teaches wherein the obtainment of the information about a use comprises determination of an alignment of the data carrier relative to the image recognition system (col. 20, line 64 to col. 21, line 5: when the driver (1001) is using the telecommunication device or cellular telephone for texting, the actual device may be positioned at the location indicated for device (1004) shown in FIG. 10. In some cases, the combination of the audio signals received from the directional beamforming antenna array discussed above together with the image captured by the camera may be conclusive evidence that the driver (1001) is indeed talking over these telecommunications device or cellular telephone (1003) ).
Regarding claims 18 and 25, the claim are directed to an apparatus/a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claim 11, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claim 13, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claims 22 and 28, the claim are directed to an apparatus/a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claim 15, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Claim(s) 12, 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 9919648 B1) in view of KOBAYASHI (US 20170213098 A1) as applies to claims 1, 18 and 25, and further in view of Rosen (US 20150054639 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pedersen in view of KOBAYASHI does not explicitly disclose wherein the obtainment of the information about a use comprises determination by means of an infrared camera.
However, Rosen teaches wherein the obtainment of the information about a use comprises determination by means of an infrared camera (Figs. 8-9, ¶0101, 0112: infrared cameras may capture images of the vehicle which show the location of warm objects inside the vehicle, such as people. If only one warm object is detected in the vehicle, the system may be operative to determine and/or indicate that the vehicle includes only one occupant that is both driving the vehicle and using a mobile phone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the image recognition system of Pedersen in view of KOBAYASHI by incorporating the teaching of Rosen as noted above, in order to make a determination such as mobile phone usage while driving, using an infrared camera in cases when it is too dark to capture images of the occupants of the vehicle with a visible light camera (Rosen: ¶0101).
Regarding claims 19 and 26, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claims 12 and 13, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 12 and 13.
Claim(s) 14, 17, 21, 24 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 9919648 B1) in view of KOBAYASHI (US 20170213098 A1) as applies to claims 1, 18 and 25, and further in view of Hariri et al. (US 20180290627 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Pedersen teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the image recognition system comprises a plurality of RGB cameras (col. 11, lines 1-3: The optical cameras (305) of FIG. 3 may also be used with image analysis software to perform such tasks as facial recognition to identify particular drivers).
Pedersen does not explicitly disclose wherein the activation of the RGB function of the image recognition system results in one RGB camera of the plurality of RGB cameras of the image recognition system being activated, the method further comprising: determining said one RGB camera that is to be activated in the image recognition system on the basis of the determined position of the data carrier.
However, Hariri teaches wherein the activation of the RGB function of the image recognition system results in one RGB camera of the plurality of RGB cameras of the image recognition system being activated (Figs. 3, 4a-4b, ¶0022: For example, camera(s) 32 may be used in conjunction with image and video processing software, e.g., image recognition software. ¶0030: For example, in some embodiments, the detection of an authorized mobile device 80 may initiate controller 100 to activate camera(s) 32) the method further comprising: determining said one RGB camera that is to be activated in the image recognition system on the basis of the determined position of the data carrier (¶0036: Predictive model 200 may include a first field 202 having data indicating movement trajectory data of mobile device 80…If the recorded pathway sufficiently matches trajectory 3-9, controller 100 may be configured to generate and transmit a signal to turn on receiver 30 and/or camera 32 located at rear end 42 of vehicle 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pedersen by incorporating the teaching of Hariri in order to conserve battery power by selectively activation the cameras (¶0052).
Regarding claim 17, Pedersen in view of KOBAYASHI and Hariri teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Hariri further teaches deactivating the RGB function of the image recognition system after the information presented on the data carrier has been determined (Hariri discloses activation of camera(s) 32 based on detection and authorization of mobile device 80 may conserve battery power while also enabling authentication and/or gesture recognition). Note that the system of Hariri is in a deactivated state before the detection of the mobile device 80. The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 14 to modify Pedersen applies here.
Regarding claims 21, 24, 27 and 30, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claims 14 and 17, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 14 and 17.
Claim(s) 16, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 9919648 B1) in view of KOBAYASHI (US 20170213098 A1) as applies to claims 1, 18 and 25, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 20140078311 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Pedersen in view of KOBAYASHI does not explicitly disclose wherein the taking of a measure comprises output of information about a required position and/or alignment of the data carrier for improved determination of the information of the data carrier.
However, Choi teaches wherein the taking of a measure comprises output of information about a required position and/or alignment of the data carrier for improved determination of the information of the data carrier (Figs. 1-3, ¶0033, 0036-0039: Multimedia apparatus 200 subsequently outputs user guidance information, based on the determined location of the controller 215 [may be a mobile terminal, such as a remote controller, a sensor band, a mobile phone, a smart phone], through at least one of the screen, a speaker, and a vibration device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pedersen in view of KOBAYASHI by incorporating the teaching of Choi in order to obtain a system which guide a user of a mobile terminal a to move within the recognizable range of a camera (¶0027, 0033).
Regarding claims 23 and 29, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims and recite the limitation analogous to claim 16, and are rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 16, 23 and 29 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Choi et al. (US 20140078311 A1). See the rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) above.
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. (US 20110050589 A1) describes “GESTURE-BASED INFORMATION AND COMMAND ENTRY FOR MOTOR VEHICLE”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights