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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 1 - 15, recite the limitation “inside the vehicle” in various locations. Please consider to amend the limitation to “inside of the vehicle”.
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.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation “an image” in line 6. The limitation is ambiguous because it reuses the same limitation that has already been defined in line 5. The limitation should be amended to “the image” for proper antecedent basis.
The limitation “the presence” in line 9 lacks antecedent basis.
The limitation “it” in line 10 is indefinite because it is unclear which antecedent “it” is referring to.
Regarding claims 2-13, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, recites the limitation “a person to be monitored” in line 6. The limitation is ambiguous because it reuses the same limitation that has already been defined in line 8 of claim 1. The limitation should be amended to “the person to be monitored” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, recites the limitation “perform further determination as to whether the person to be monitored is left unattended inside the vehicle in accordance with whether there is a person other than the person to be monitored present inside the vehicle, and to give a notification of the presence of a person inside the vehicle when it is determined that there is the person to be monitored left unattended inside the vehicle”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim language is grammatically confusing, ambiguous logic and missing essential elements / steps for distinctly claiming the subject matter.
For instance, the processor gives “a notification of the presence of a person”, this person appears to be different from the person being monitored. If the person being monitored is unattended then there is no presence of another person in the vehicle.
In addition, it is unclear whether the term “person” in the limitation “a notification of the presence of a person” is referring to the “person to be monitored” or “a person other than the person to be monitored”.
The limitation “it” is indefinite because it is unclear which antecedent “it” is referring to.
The limitation is further rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements / steps for determine the presence of “a person other than the person to be monitored present inside the vehicle”. It is unclear how the apparatus determines the presence of the other person.
Regarding claim 9, recites the limitation “detect that the person inside the vehicle has alighted from the vehicle, and give a notification of the presence of a person present inside the vehicle when a person other than the person to be monitored has alighted from the vehicle.”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim language is grammatically confusing, ambiguous logic and missing essential elements / steps for distinctly claiming the subject matter.
For instance, it is unclear whether the notification is presented in response to the detection of “the person inside of the vehicle has alighted” or “a person other than the person to be monitored has alighted”.
In addition, the claim recites the limitation “a notification of the presence of a person” in line 5-6. It is unclear who is this “person” because “the person inside of the vehicle” and “a person other than the person to be monitored” have alighted from the vehicle. The use of a same term “a person” to refer to different individuals causes confusion.
The limitation is further rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential elements / steps for determine the presence of “a person other than the person to be monitored has alighted from the vehicle”. It is unclear how the apparatus determines the absence of the other person.
Regarding claim 10, is also rejected because the claim depends on claim 9 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 9.
In addition, the limitation “the last person” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 13 - 15, the limitation “it” is indefinite because it is unclear which antecedent “it” is referring to.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Neubecker (Pub. No.: US 2022/0118941 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neubecker teaches a notification apparatus (Fig. 1 and abstract) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 1, memory 112); and
at least one processor (Fig. 1, processor 132) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire person information of a person inside a vehicle from an image of an inside of the vehicle acquired by capturing an image of the inside of the vehicle (Fig. 1, camera 114 and para [0021], “For example, when a child enters the vehicle 102, the vehicle computer 112 can obtain images from the image sensing platform 114. Generally, the image sensing platform 114 can include one or more cameras that obtain images of users in the vehicle.”. The camera captures the image of the child.);
determine, based on the person information, whether the person inside the vehicle is a person to be monitored (Fig. 2, step 208, para [0021], “Generally, the image sensing platform 114 can include one or more cameras that obtain images of users in the vehicle. These images can be compared to images stored in the profiles for the vehicle. When a known child enters the vehicle, the vehicle 102 can be placed into a drive lock mode where control of the vehicle is disabled.”. The vehicle determines the identity of the child via facial recognition.); and
give notification of the presence of a person inside the vehicle when it is determined that the person inside the vehicle is the person to be monitored (Fig. 2, step 212, para [0026], “In one example, the drive lock mode can be deactivated through a request and response process. For example, the vehicle computer 112 can cause the display of a request message on the HMI 138.”. The vehicle outputs a notification on the display of the vehicle to request for permission to drive.).
Regarding claim 2, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire attribute information of the person inside the vehicle from the image of the inside of the vehicle as the person information (para [0019], “In more detail, the vehicle computer 112 can store a profile for each child that is known to travel in the vehicle. A parent can cause the creation of a profile for each of their children that ride in the vehicle. The profile can include information such as facial images of the child that can be used in facial recognition processes discussed herein. The profile can also include other information such as height, weight, and other user metrics that can be utilized to determine the presence of the child in the vehicle.”. The vehicle identifies the child is a known child via facial recognition, height, weight and others.).
Regarding claim 4, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire the person information by performing face authentication on an image of a face area detected based on the image of the inside of the vehicle (para [0019], “In more detail, the vehicle computer 112 can store a profile for each child that is known to travel in the vehicle. A parent can cause the creation of a profile for each of their children that ride in the vehicle. The profile can include information such as facial images of the child that can be used in facial recognition processes discussed herein.”. The vehicle identifies the child is a known child via facial recognition.).
Regarding claim 5, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify the person inside the vehicle by performing face authentication (para [0019], “In more detail, the vehicle computer 112 can store a profile for each child that is known to travel in the vehicle. A parent can cause the creation of a profile for each of their children that ride in the vehicle. The profile can include information such as facial images of the child that can be used in facial recognition processes discussed herein.”. The vehicle identifies the child is a known child via facial recognition.).
Regarding claim 6, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire state information of the person inside the vehicle as the person information (para [0015], “The vehicle computer 112 can utilize vehicle sensing technology that can include face or voice identification, to detect if a known child is ingressing a vehicle or is already inside the vehicle.”. The vehicle determines the state of the child is located inside of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire vehicle information of the vehicle, and
perform determination as to whether the person inside the vehicle is a person to be monitored in accordance with the acquired vehicle information (para [0019], “In more detail, the vehicle computer 112 can store a profile for each child that is known to travel in the vehicle. A parent can cause the creation of a profile for each of their children that ride in the vehicle. The profile can include information such as facial images of the child that can be used in facial recognition processes discussed herein.”. The processor acquires the profile of the known child from the storage of the vehicle to determine whether the image of the child is the known child.).
Regarding claim 8, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
perform further determination as to whether the person to be monitored is left unattended inside the vehicle in accordance with whether there is a person other than the person to be monitored present inside the vehicle (para [0020], “In some instances, profiles for each user of the vehicle 102, such as drivers and passengers, can be stored at the vehicle level or the service provider 108. Profiles can be stored for drivers so the vehicle computer 112 can determine if a driver present in the vehicle is an authorized driver. When an unauthorized driver is sensed, the vehicle computer 112 can place the vehicle in an active drive lock mode to prevent the vehicle 102 from being driven.” and para [0015], “In one example, the vehicle computer 112 can be configured to use these methods to prevent criminals or unwitting users from driving away in a vehicle with a minor inside. For example, the systems and methods can be utilized to prevent an unauthorized user from driving away in an unattended vehicle.”. The vehicle determines the child is unattended by the parent and an unauthorized driver enters into the vehicle), and
to give a notification of the presence of a person inside the vehicle when it is determined that there is the person to be monitored left unattended inside the vehicle (Fig. 2, step 212, para [0027], “Rather than using the HMI 138, the vehicle computer 112 can allow an authorized user to activate or deactivate the drive lock mode from their smartphone 140. For example, the vehicle computer 112 can transmit a request to the smartphone 140. An application executing on the smartphone 140 can receive and display the request to the authorized user. The authorized user can respond to the request with authorization information such as a code, biometric information, or the like.”. The parent 104 receives a notification the unauthorized driver enters into the vehicle and the known child is unattended.).
Regarding claim 11, Neubecker teaches a notification system (Fig. 1, abstract) comprising:
a camera for capturing an image of the inside of a vehicle (Fig. 1, camera 114); and
the notification apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 2. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 8. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 14, recites a method for the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, recites a CRM for the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubecker (Pub. No.: US 2022/0118941 A1) in view of Li (Pat. No.: US 10,275,670 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Neubecker teaches the notification apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to estimate an age of the person inside the vehicle based on an image of a face area detected based on the image of the inside of the vehicle and acquire the estimated age as the attribute information.
However, in the same field of passenger detection, Li teaches a vehicle configured to estimate an age of the passenger via image from a camera. See Col. 7, lines 1 – 6, “In another instance, an abnormal condition may be when the vehicle is solely occupied by a child (e.g., a child under the age of 10, or another age). In this instance, the computing device 210 may analyze the relevant image data (in particular, the image data that depicts a face of an individual) to estimate an age of the depicted individual.”.
Therefore, 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 Neubecker’s vehicle to estimate the age of the passenger based on the image of the passenger to improve safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights