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 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) 1, 3-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2007/0124599 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2018/0079419 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, discloses a method (e.g. Abstract), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g. [0027]) storing a program for causing a processor to execute processing, and an occupant authentication apparatus (e.g. Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (e.g. [0027]); and
at least one processor (e.g. [0027]) configured to execute the instructions to:
authenticate an occupant of a vehicle by face authentication (e.g. [0026, 0029]); and
change a criterion for determination of success and failure in the face authentication according to a traveling state of the vehicle (e.g. [0047]: setting authentication level to high when vehicle is parked and alarm is operated).
Morita fails to disclose, but Yamamoto teaches the traveling state of the vehicle is traveling, parked, or temporality stopped, and the traveling state of the vehicle is based on an image, from a camera, of a region outside the vehicle (e.g. [0043-0047]: determine traveling state of own-vehicle based on detection of vehicles and/or object around the own-vehicle).
Morita discloses authentication level is changed according to whether the vehicle is parked; thus, based on the traveling state of the vehicle. However, Morita is silent on how the traveling state is determined, but Yamamoto teaches it is known in the art to utilize image around the vehicle to determine a traveling state of the vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Morita with the teachings of Yamamoto to determine traveling state of a vehicle based on surrounding images of the vehicle captured by a camera, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another (i.e. replacing traveling state determination method of Morita with teachings of Yamamoto) according to KSR.
Regarding claim 3, Morita discloses lower the criterion for determination when the vehicle is traveling as compared to when the vehicle is stopped (e.g. [0047]: the authentication level is highest when vehicle is parked and alarm is operated as compared to other situations; thus, implies criterion is lower when vehicle is not stopped/parked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to lower the criterion for determination when the vehicle is traveling as compared to when the vehicle is stopped (i.e. modification of the authentication level while vehicle is parked as compared to vehicle is moving).
Regarding claims 4, Morita discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the determination unit changes the criterion for determination further according to surrounding environment information of the vehicle (e.g. [0032, 0053, 0054]).
Regarding claims 6, Morita discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to change the determination unit changes the criterion for determination according to whether the vehicle is parked (e.g. [0047]) or temporarily stopped when the vehicle is stopped (e.g. [0074]).
Regarding claims 7, Morita discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to comprising a warning unit configured to generate an alert in a case where the face authentication has failed (e.g. [0073]).
Regarding claims 8, Morita discloses the at least one processor is configured to:
execute the instructions to verify a face image of the occupant or a feature amount extracted from the face image with a registered image of a registrant or a feature amount extracted from the registered image;
calculate a verification score indicating a matching degree between the occupant and the registrant;
compare the calculated verification score with the criterion for determination; and
determine whether or not the face authentication has succeeded based on a result of the comparison (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3: S8 & Fig. 4: S28 & Fig. 11 & [0044, 0068]: compare matching level obtained by face with authentication level to obtain similarity level to see if it matches the required level).
Regarding claims 9, Morita discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a threshold for the verification score as the criterion for determination; and
determine the authentication unit determines whether or not the face authentication has succeeded according to whether or not the verification score is equal to or higher than the threshold (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3: S8 & Fig. 4: S28 & Fig. 11 & [0044, 0068]: compare matching level obtained by face with authentication level to obtain similarity level to see if it matches the required level).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2007/0124599 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2018/0079419 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizobuchi (WO 2018/043100 A1) (hereinafter rejections refer to provided equivalent English translation).
Regarding claims 5, Morita fails to disclose, but Mizobuchi teaches the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to the authentication unit repeatedly perform the face authentication from when the occupant enters the vehicle to when the occupant exits the vehicle (e.g. p. 4, 8 and 9: perform driver’s confirmation during driving implies authentication is repeatedly performed).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Morita with the teachings of Mizobuchi to monitor driver authentication repeatedly during driving so as to ensure the same driver or an authorized driver is driving the vehicle at all time.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (US 2007/0124599 A1) in view of Yamamoto (US 2018/0079419 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inami (WO 2020129360 A1) (hereinafter rejections refer to provided equivalent English translation).
Regarding claim 12, Morita fails to disclose, but Inami teaches determine that the vehicle is parked in a case where speed of the vehicle is 0 and a shift position is parking (P); and determine that the speed is 0 and the shift position is other than P (e.g. p. 5: zero speed and shift range in parking position; implies capable of determining whether the shift range in a parking P or other than P).
Morita discloses authentication level is changed according to whether the vehicle is parked; thus, based on the traveling state of the vehicle. However, Morita is silent on how the traveling state is determined, but Inami teaches it is known in the art to determine parking state of a vehicle based on speed and shift range position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Morita to determine traveling state of a vehicle based on teachings of Inami, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another (i.e. replacing traveling state determination method of Morita with teachings of Inami) according to KSR.
Regarding claim 13, Inami teaches determine whether the vehicle is parked or temporarily stopped based on an elapsed time from stop of the vehicle; and determine that the vehicle is parked in a case where a state in which speed of the vehicle is 0 continues for a predetermined time or more after the speed becomes 0 (e.g. p. 5: zero speed for a certain period of time).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claims 3-9 and 12-13 are unpatentable in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
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 KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688