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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
TERMINAL DISCLAIMER
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/26/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,159,427 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
In view of terminal disclaimer approval, double patenting rejection is overcome.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 13-14 & 16-18 filed 07/26/2026. Applicants arguments filed on (07/26/2026) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1-3, 11, 13-14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485)
As to claims 1, 11 & 14, Maeda discloses an object detection device, comprising: at least one light source, configured to emit light ([0001-0003, 0010, 0013] discloses a light source configured to project modulated light onto an occupant and the light source 104 emits light); at least one optical sensor, configured to sense optical data generated based on reflected light of the light ([0002, 0010, 0013, 0016, 0020] discloses a detector configured to receive reflections of the light and the CMOS array is structured and driven to detect a time it takes light emitted from the light source to travel to an object, and arrive back at the CMOS array due to being reflected off the object.);
detect displacement or existence of an object which generates the reflected light ([0015-0017, 0031] discloses detecting occupants/objects based on sensed optical three-dimensional data.).
Maeda is silent to determine whether a target space is occupied according to the centroid.
However, Wang discloses determine whether a target space is occupied according to the centroid. ([0006-0007, 0020-0022, 0029 and 0035] discloses acquiring optical sensed values, filtering the sensed values, determining a location of a center of gravity according to the sensed values, and calculating depth information according to the determined center of gravity location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide an efficient and accurate determination of object position from reflected optical data.
As to claim 2, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the distance information comprises at least one distance value, and the processing circuit determines the position according to the distance value, . ([0020] discloses the processor 202 converts to distance measurements, which can then be combined to form 3D data usable to detect objects. [0027, 0029] discloses image 304 is a range image where the value of each pixel indicates a distance from a reference point. [0027] discloses the systems and apparatuses described herein generally utilize time of flight measurements to determine three dimensional position of objects.)
wherein the processing circuit further computes distance information between the optical sensor and the object; ([0013, 0016, 0020, 0027-0030])
As to claim 3, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 2. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the processing circuit determines the position by computing multi axes distances between the optical sensor and the object. ([0029-0030] discloses image 306 is a depth map; the image 306 displays the value of each pixel as a coordinate on a three dimensional coordinate system.)
As to claim 16, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 14. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the distance information comprises at least one distance value or a relative distance variation ([0010] discloses measurement of time of flight can be used to generate a three-dimensional depth map of the object.), and the processing circuit determines if the target space is occupied according to the distance value or according to the relative distance variation. ([0029-0030] discloses image 304 is a range image that is a two-dimensional pixel map where the value of the pixel indicates a distance from a reference point and both of these images 304, 306 may contain sufficient data to enable detection of an occupant.)
wherein the processing circuit further computes distance information between the optical sensor and the object; ([0013, 0016, 0020, 0027-0030])
As to claim 17, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 16. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the processing circuit determines if the target space is occupied by computing multi axes distances between the optical sensor and the object. ([0027] discloses the systems and apparatus described herein generally utilize time of flight measurement to determine three dimensional position of objects. [0030] discloses image 306 is a depth map and the image 306 displays the value of each pixel as a coordinate on a three dimensional coordinate system. [0030] discloses both of these images 304, 306 may contain sufficient data to enable detection of an occupant.)
wherein the processing circuit further computes distance information between the optical sensor and the object; ([0013, 0016, 0020, 0027-0030])
As to claims 13 & 18, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the processing circuit further determines a location of the object according to the distance information. ([0027] discloses the systems and apparatuses described herein generally utilize time of flight measurements to determine three dimensional position of objects. [0027] discloses these positions may be expressed in relative to a fixed or moving reference point. )
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of Schmidt (U.S. Publication 2002/0180989)
As to claim 4, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the processing circuit further computes distance information between the optical sensor and the object; ([0013, 0016, 0020, 0027-0030])
Maeda in view of Wang is silent to wherein the distance information comprises a relative distance variation, and the processing circuit determines the position according to the relative distance variation.
However, Schmidt discloses wherein the distance information comprises a relative distance variation, and the processing circuit determines the position according to the relative distance variation. ([0004] & Abstract discloses optical sensor for measuring the distance and/or inclination of a surface or for detecting the distance and/or change in inclination of a surface. [0044-0047] discloses the position of the light spot shows the inclination and shows the deviation normal to the reference plane.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine object position from changes in the reflected light distance information, including relative distance variation rather than only a single absolute distance value.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485) as applied above further claim 1 in view of Yin et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0142393)
As to claim 5, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 respectively but is silent to wherein the line light source comprises a vertical line light source and a horizontal line light source.
However, Yin discloses wherein the line light source comprises a vertical line light source and a horizontal line light source. ([0026, 0075-0078, 0084]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to facilitate quick and accurate identification and matching of measured object points and thereby improve determination of three dimensional object coordinates.
Claims 6-8, 12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485) as applied above in claim 1 further in view of Ding et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0053192)
As to claim 6, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Maeda discloses wherein the processing circuit further computes distance information between the optical sensor and the object; wherein the processing circuit further determines at least one position of the object according to the distance information. ([0027-0030])
Maeda in view of Wang is silent to wherein the position is an inclining state of the object.
However, Ding discloses wherein the position is an inclining state of the object. ([Abstract, 0004] discloses optical sensor for measuring the distance and/or inclination of a surface) ([0044-0047] discloses the position of the light spot shows the inclination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine, as the object position, an inclining state of the object from the reflected light distance information.
As to claim 7, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 6 respectively but is silent to wherein the object is a chair.
However, Ding discloses wherein the object is a chair. ([0004, 0044-0047] discloses measuring the distance and/or inclination of surface and the position of the light spot shows the inclination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine the inclining state of a chair/seat detected by the reflected light system.
As to claim 8, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claim 6 respectively but is silent to wherein the object is a human body.
However, Ding discloses wherein the object is a human body. ([0004, 0044-0047] discloses measuring the distance and/or inclination of a surface and the position of the light spot shows the inclination)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine an inclining state of the human body from the reflected light distance information.
As to claims 12 & 15, Maeda in view of Wang discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 14 respectively but is silent to wherein the target space is a chair, a compartment, a container, an elevator or a parking space.
However, Ding discloses wherein the target space is a chair, a compartment, a container, an elevator or a parking space. ([0006, 0015-0016] discloses a parking occupancy detection system includes a camera and one or more processors and the parking region comprises a parking spot. Also see where a parking spot 110 is either considered occupied or unoccupied and the purpose of the system is to determine the parking occupancy status of each parking spot 110. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine whether a parking space is occupied.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485) & Ding et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0053192) as applied in claim 6 above further in view of Pajic (U.S. Publication 2016/0114891)
As to claim 9, Maeda in view of Wang & Ding discloses everything as disclosed in claim 6 respectively but is silent to wherein the object is a tray table.
However, Pajic discloses wherein the object is a tray table. (Abstract, [0011, 0013] discloses the tray table includes a panel…The panel is capable of rotating between an open and closed position, while the tray table itself may rotate between a stowed and service position.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang & Ding’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine the inclining state or position state of a tray table.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (U.S. Publication 2013/0148845) in view of Wang (U.S. Publication 2016/0187485) & Ding et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0053192) as applied in claim 6 above further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0109880)
As to claim 10, Maeda in view of Wang & Ding discloses everything as disclosed in claim 6 respectively but is silent to a prompt message generation device, configured to generate a prompt message according to the inclining state.
However, Lee discloses a prompt message generation device, configured to generate a prompt message according to the inclining state. ([0018-0020] discloses the processing element is adapted to output a signal to the alert element in response to the posture change for a predetermined period so that the alert element is adapted to output an alert accordingly. When the user has kept a bad posture continuously for 30 seconds the processing element 13 will send a sensing signal to the alert element 14 so that the alert element 14 outputs an alert signal to warn the user of the bad posture.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Maeda in view of Wang & Ding’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to generate a prompt message when the detected inclining state indicates a posture or position condition of interest.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights