DETAILED ACTION
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 1-45 are currently pending for examination.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
4. Claims 1-7, 9-19 and 37-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of US Patent No. 12,145,616. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
5. Claims 8, 20-36 and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of US Patent No. 12,145,616. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed to determine attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle” is conventional prior art feature and the use of such feature in claims 1-39 of US Patent No. 12,145,616 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
6. Claims 1-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of US Patent No. 11,851,080. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because “a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera”, “image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed at the ECU to determine skeletal structure of the occupant mapped from a perceived body position of the occupant” and “image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed to determine attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle” are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in claims 1-28 of US Patent No. 11,851,080 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa (US 2021/0197747) in view of Munaoka et al. (Munaoka; US 2017/0158054).
For claim 1, Yoshizawa discloses a vehicular cabin monitoring system, the vehicular cabin monitoring system comprising:
an interior-viewing camera [Fig. 1: image capturing device 21], wherein the interior-viewing camera views within the interior cabin of the vehicle [E.g. 0070: Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle. For example, image capturing device 21 is a charge coupled device (CCD) camera and is highly sensitive in a near-infrared range. Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the general area around the headrest in the driver's seat. Image capturing device 21 outputs a captured image that includes the driver to driver monitoring device 10.];
wherein the interior-viewing camera is operable to capture image data [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the vehicle [Fig. 1: driver monitoring device 10], wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software, and wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor operable to process image data captured by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is transferred to and is processed at the ECU [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the interior-viewing camera, (i) detects presence of an occupant occupying a seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle and (ii) determines posture of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0007, 0013, 0132]; and
wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant, improper posture of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant is determined [E.g. 0073: detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0080, 0082, 0085, 0128].
Yoshizawa fails to expressly disclose that the interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera.
However, as shown by Munaoka, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system [E.g. 0022], and a light emitter, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa with the teaching of Munaoka in order to have a camera that have a better view of the driver, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
Furthermore, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose fails to expressly teach that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly.
Although Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka teaches a light emitter that emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka to have the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka.
For claim 2, Yoshizawa discloses wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed at the ECU to determine skeletal structure of the occupant mapped from a perceived body position of the occupant [E.g. 0080: An irregular posture can be an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit or an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. When the driver is in an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit, the amount of irregularity in the posture tends to exceed the threshold continuously starting from immediately after the driver has started driving. Examples of such a case include a case where the driver moves the driver's seat forward and drives in a slightly forward leaning posture and a case where the driver moves the driver's seat backward and drives in a slightly backward leaning posture, 0128: in FIG. 3 illustrates an example in which the driver drives the vehicle in the manual driving mode with his or her back being stretched. In this case, the driver is relaxed and is in an irregular posture. Therefore, determination controller 12 presents the posture information illustrated in a in FIG. 3 via display 27 and audio block 22.; Fig. 3].
For claim 3, Yoshizawa discloses wherein proper posture of a properly-postured occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant is stored in memory, and wherein a threshold degree of improper posture of the occupant is determined by the vehicular cabin monitoring system by comparing the determined posture of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant to the proper posture stored in memory [E.g. 0073: detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0080: An irregular posture can be an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit or an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. When the driver is in an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit, the amount of irregularity in the posture tends to exceed the threshold continuously starting from immediately after the driver has started driving. Examples of such a case include a case where the driver moves the driver's seat forward and drives in a slightly forward leaning posture and a case where the driver moves the driver's seat backward and drives in a slightly backward leaning posture, 0128: in FIG. 3 illustrates an example in which the driver drives the vehicle in the manual driving mode with his or her back being stretched. In this case, the driver is relaxed and is in an irregular posture. Therefore, determination controller 12 presents the posture information illustrated in a in FIG. 3 via display 27 and audio block 22.; Fig. 3, 0082, 0085].
For claim 4, Yoshizawa discloses wherein an alert is generated responsive to the determined posture of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant being different than the proper posture stored in memory by at least a threshold amount [E.g. 0124: If the detected irregular posture can impede the vehicle from traveling safely (YES in S21), driver monitoring device 10 provides a notification concerning the irregular posture (S15). In this case, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver with a method that has an immediate effect on the driver. For example, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver with a method that the driver can notice immediately. In addition, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver immediately at the moment when the detected irregular posture is determined to be an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. As the notification concerning the irregular posture, driver monitoring device 10 implements at least one or more of the following control techniques. Specifically, driver monitoring device 10 may cause audio block 22 to output a warning sound, cause audio block 22 to raise the volume of a warning sound gradually, cause illumination device 23 to change the light emitted from illumination device 23, cause first actuator 24 to tighten the seat belt provided in the driver's seat, cause second actuator 25 to make the steering wheel in the driver's seat vibrate, cause air conditioning device 26 to lower the temperature inside the vehicle compartment, cause air conditioning device 26 to blow the air toward the driver, or cause display 27 to display an alert concerning the irregular posture. With regard to the change in the light emitted from illumination device 23, driver monitoring device 10 may control illumination device 23 to increase the red tone of the light emitted from illumination device 23 or to increase the brightness of the light emitted from illumination device 23. Driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver by controlling at least one of audio block 22, illumination device 23, first actuator 24, second actuator 25, air conditioning device 26, or display 27, 0073, 0080, 0128, 0015, 0132].
For claim 6, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the occupant is a driver of the vehicle occupying a driver seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle [E.g. 0073, 0080, 0124].
For claim 8, Yoshizawa discloses wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed to determine attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle [E.g. 0073-0074, 0033, 0065].
For claim 9, Yoshizawa discloses wherein posture of the occupant is determined based at least in part on a determined spinal position of the occupant relative to the seat that is occupied by the occupant [E.g. 0080: An irregular posture can be an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit or an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. When the driver is in an irregular posture resulting from the driver's habit, the amount of irregularity in the posture tends to exceed the threshold continuously starting from immediately after the driver has started driving. Examples of such a case include a case where the driver moves the driver's seat forward and drives in a slightly forward leaning posture and a case where the driver moves the driver's seat backward and drives in a slightly backward leaning posture, 0128: in FIG. 3 illustrates an example in which the driver drives the vehicle in the manual driving mode with his or her back being stretched. In this case, the driver is relaxed and is in an irregular posture. Therefore, determination controller 12 presents the posture information illustrated in a in FIG. 3 via display 27 and audio block 22.; Fig. 3].
For claim 10, Yoshizawa discloses wherein an alert is generated responsive to determination of a threshold degree of improper posture [E.g. 0124: If the detected irregular posture can impede the vehicle from traveling safely (YES in S21), driver monitoring device 10 provides a notification concerning the irregular posture (S15). In this case, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver with a method that has an immediate effect on the driver. For example, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver with a method that the driver can notice immediately. In addition, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver immediately at the moment when the detected irregular posture is determined to be an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. As the notification concerning the irregular posture, driver monitoring device 10 implements at least one or more of the following control techniques. Specifically, driver monitoring device 10 may cause audio block 22 to output a warning sound, cause audio block 22 to raise the volume of a warning sound gradually, cause illumination device 23 to change the light emitted from illumination device 23, cause first actuator 24 to tighten the seat belt provided in the driver's seat, cause second actuator 25 to make the steering wheel in the driver's seat vibrate, cause air conditioning device 26 to lower the temperature inside the vehicle compartment, cause air conditioning device 26 to blow the air toward the driver, or cause display 27 to display an alert concerning the irregular posture. With regard to the change in the light emitted from illumination device 23, driver monitoring device 10 may control illumination device 23 to increase the red tone of the light emitted from illumination device 23 or to increase the brightness of the light emitted from illumination device 23. Driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver by controlling at least one of audio block 22, illumination device 23, first actuator 24, second actuator 25, air conditioning device 26, or display 27, 0015, 0132].
For claim 11, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the alert comprises actuation of a visible indicator that is viewable by the occupant of the vehicle [E.g. 0048: at least one notifier of the one or more notifiers is an illumination device that illuminates the interior of a vehicle compartment, and the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by changing the light emitted from the illumination device when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0059: at least one notifier of the one or more notifiers is a display capable of presenting information to the driver, and the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by displaying a content indicating that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0060, 0085, 0096].
For claim 13, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the visible indicator comprises a light emitting diode [E.g. 0048: at least one notifier of the one or more notifiers is an illumination device that illuminates the interior of a vehicle compartment, and the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by changing the light emitted from the illumination device when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0096].
For claim 14, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the alert comprises actuation of the visible indicator to emit red light [E.g. 0051: the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by increasing the red tone of the light emitted from the illumination device when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0124: or example, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver with a method that the driver can notice immediately. In addition, driver monitoring device 10 alerts the driver immediately at the moment when the detected irregular posture is determined to be an irregular posture resulting from other than the driver's habit. As the notification concerning the irregular posture, driver monitoring device 10 implements at least one or more of the following control techniques. Specifically, driver monitoring device 10 may cause audio block 22 to output a warning sound, cause audio block 22 to raise the volume of a warning sound gradually, cause illumination device 23 to change the light emitted from illumination device 23, cause first actuator 24 to tighten the seat belt provided in the driver's seat, cause second actuator 25 to make the steering wheel in the driver's seat vibrate, cause air conditioning device 26 to lower the temperature inside the vehicle compartment, cause air conditioning device 26 to blow the air toward the driver, or cause display 27 to display an alert concerning the irregular posture. With regard to the change in the light emitted from illumination device 23, driver monitoring device 10 may control illumination device 23 to increase the red tone of the light emitted from illumination device 23 ].
For claim 15, Although Yoshizawa fails to expressly disclose that the visible indicator emits green light when the vehicular cabin monitoring system is operating and the vehicular cabin monitoring system does not determine improper posture, Yoshizawa teaches the visible indicator emits a light of light color when the vehicular driver monitoring system is operating and the vehicular driver monitoring system does not determine improper posture [E. g. 0096, 0051, 0124]. However, having the visible indicator emits green light fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa to have the visible indicator emits green light when the vehicular driver monitoring system is operating and the vehicular driver monitoring system does not determine improper posture in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa.
For claim 18, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the alert comprises an audible alert [E.g. 0042: one notifier of the one or more notifiers is an audio block disposed to the front of the driver's seat, and the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by the audio block outputting a warning sound when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0085].
For claim 19, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the alert comprises a haptic alert [E.g. 0057: at least one notifier of the one or more notifiers is a second actuator that causes a steering wheel in the driver's seat to vibrate, and the notification concerning the irregular posture is implemented by the second actuator causing the steering wheel in the driver's seat to vibrate when it is determined that the irregular posture impedes the vehicle from traveling safely, 0102, 0124].
10. Claims 5, 12, 20-24, 26-29, 37-40 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and further in view of Magana et al. (Magana; US 2017/0197523).
For claim 5, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein the occupant is a passenger of the vehicle occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Magana, it was well known in the art of posture detection to include wherein an occupant is a passenger of the vehicle occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Magana in order to have a monitoring system for all vehicle occupant so that all occupant can have a good posture while seated and thereby increase all vehicle occupant satisfaction.
For claim 12, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein the visible indicator is disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Magana, it was well known in the art of vehicle indicators to include visible indicator disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly of a vehicle [E.g. 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Magana in order to have an indicator that is easy for the driver to observe when looking at the rearview mirror and thereby increase the overall driver convenience.
For claim 20, Yoshizawa discloses a vehicular cabin monitoring system, the vehicular cabin monitoring system comprising:
an interior-viewing camera [Fig. 1: image capturing device 21], wherein the interior-viewing camera views within the interior cabin of the vehicle [E.g. 0070: Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle. For example, image capturing device 21 is a charge coupled device (CCD) camera and is highly sensitive in a near-infrared range. Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the general area around the headrest in the driver's seat. Image capturing device 21 outputs a captured image that includes the driver to driver monitoring device 10.];
wherein the interior-viewing camera is operable to capture image data [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the vehicle [Fig. 1: driver monitoring device 10], wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software, and wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor operable to process image data captured by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is transferred to and is processed at the ECU [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the interior-viewing camera, (i) determines attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle [E.g. 0073-0074, 0033, 0065].
Yoshizawa fails to expressly disclose that the interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera.
However, as shown by Munaoka, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system [E.g. 0022], and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa with the teaching of Munaoka in order to have a camera that have a better view of the driver, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose fails to expressly teach that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly.
Although Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka teaches a light emitter that emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka to have the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka.
Furthermore, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein the monitoring system detects presence of a passenger occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle and determines posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger; and wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger, improper posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is determined.
However, as shown by Magana, it was well known in the art of posture detection to include wherein a monitoring system detects presence of a passenger occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle and determines posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger; and wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger, improper posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is determined [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Magana in order to have a monitoring system for all vehicle occupant so that all occupant can have a good posture while seated and thereby increase all vehicle occupant satisfaction.
For claim 21, Magana further teaches wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed at the ECU to determine skeletal structure of the passenger mapped from a perceived body position of the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006, 0002].
For claim 22, Magana further teaches wherein proper posture of a properly-postured passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is stored in memory, and wherein a threshold degree of improper posture of the passenger is determined by the vehicular cabin monitoring system by comparing the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger to the proper posture stored in memory [E.g. 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0019].
For claim 23, Magana further teaches wherein an alert is generated responsive to the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger being different than the proper posture stored in memory by at least a threshold amount [E.g. 0031-0037, 0059, 0018, Fig. 6 ].
For claim 24, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the interior-viewing camera, determines posture of the driver relative to a driver seat that is occupied by the driver [E.g. 0073, 0080, 0124].
For claim 26, Magana further teaches wherein posture of the passenger is determined based at least in part on a determined spinal position of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006, 0002].
For claim 27, Magana further teaches wherein an alert is generated responsive to determination of a threshold degree of improper posture [E.g. 0018, 0036, 0039-0040].
For claim 28, Magana further teaches wherein the alert comprises actuation of a visible indicator that is viewable by the passenger of the vehicle [E.g. 0018, 0036-0037, 0039-0040].
For claim 29, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 12.
For claim 30, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana further teaches wherein the visible indicator comprises a light emitting diode [E.g. Yoshizawa; 0048, 0096].
For claim 31, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana further teaches wherein the alert comprises actuation of the visible indicator to emit red light [E.g. Yoshizawa; 0051, 0124].
For claim 32, Although Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein the visible indicator emits green light when the vehicular cabin monitoring system is operating and the vehicular cabin monitoring system does not determine improper posture, Yoshizawa teaches the visible indicator emits a light of light color when the vehicular driver monitoring system is operating and the vehicular driver monitoring system does not determine improper posture [E. g. 0096, 0051, 0124]. However, having the visible indicator emits green light fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana to have the visible indicator emits green light when the vehicular driver monitoring system is operating and the vehicular driver monitoring system does not determine improper posture in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana.
For claim 35, Magana further teaches wherein the alert comprises an audible alert [E.g. 0037].
For claim 36, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana further teaches wherein the alert comprises a haptic alert [E.g. Yoshizawa; 0057, 0102, 0124].
For claim 37, Yoshizawa discloses a vehicular cabin monitoring system, the vehicular cabin monitoring system comprising:
an interior-viewing camera [Fig. 1: image capturing device 21], wherein the interior-viewing camera views within the interior cabin of the vehicle [E.g. 0070: Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle. For example, image capturing device 21 is a charge coupled device (CCD) camera and is highly sensitive in a near-infrared range. Image capturing device 21 captures an image of the general area around the headrest in the driver's seat. Image capturing device 21 outputs a captured image that includes the driver to driver monitoring device 10.];
wherein the interior-viewing camera is operable to capture image data [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
an electronic control unit (ECU) disposed at the vehicle [Fig. 1: driver monitoring device 10], wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software, and wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor operable to process image data captured by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is transferred to and is processed at the ECU [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture];
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the interior-viewing camera, (i) determines posture of a driver relative to a driver seat that is occupied by the driver [E.g. 0073: Detector 11 detects an irregular posture of the driver in the driver's seat of the vehicle based on an image captured by image capturing device 21. An irregular posture is a posture that has resulted from the driver moving his or her body to distort the posture from a proper posture that the driver is in while sitting in the driver's seat, and an irregular posture is an improper posture. Examples of an irregular posture also include a posture held when the driver is distracted with his or her eyes off the road. Specifically, detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0007, 0013, 0132]; and
wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the driver relative to the driver seat that is occupied by the driver, improper posture of the driver relative to the driver seat that is occupied by the driver is determined [E.g. 0073: detector 11 recognizes an image captured by image capturing device 21 and calculates the amount of irregularity in the posture of the driver. The amount of irregularity in the posture is defined by the amount or the degree of the distortion in the posture. When the amount of irregularity in the posture is greater than or equal to a threshold, detector 11 determines that the driver is in an irregular posture. If detector 11 has detected an irregular posture of the driver based on the amount of irregularity in the posture, detector 11 acquires time information indicating the time when the irregular posture has been detected from timer 13 and outputs the acquired time information along with information indicating the detected irregular posture to determination controller 12. The information indicating the irregular posture also includes the amount of irregularity in the posture, 0080, 0082, 0085, 0128].
Yoshizawa fails to expressly disclose that the interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system and a light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera; wherein the light emitter comprises at least one near infrared light emitting diode.
However, as shown by Munaoka, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include interior-viewing camera disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system [E.g. 0022], and a light emitter, wherein the light emitter, when electrically operated, emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera; and wherein the light emitter comprises at least one near infrared light emitting diode [E.g. 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa with the teaching of Munaoka in order to have a camera that have a better view of the driver, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable result.
Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose fails to expressly teach that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly.
Although Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose that the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka teaches a light emitter that emits near infrared light to illuminate at least a portion of the interior cabin that is viewed by the interior-viewing camera [E.g. see analysis above]. However, having the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly fails to yield unpredictable results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka to have the light emitter disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement which require using such threshold time, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka.
Furthermore, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein the monitoring system detects presence of a passenger occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle and (iii) determines posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger; wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger, improper posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is determined.
However, as shown by Magana, it was well known in the art of posture detection to include wherein monitoring system detects presence of a passenger occupying a passenger seat within the interior cabin of the vehicle and determines posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger; wherein, based at least in part on the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger, improper posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is determined [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Magana in order to have a monitoring system for all vehicle occupant so that all occupant can have a good posture while seated and thereby increase all vehicle occupant satisfaction.
For claim 38, Magana further teaches wherein image data captured by the interior-viewing camera is processed at the ECU to determine skeletal structure of the passenger mapped from a perceived body position of the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006, 0002].
For claim 39, Magana further teaches wherein proper posture of a properly-postured passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger is stored in memory, and wherein a threshold degree of improper posture of the passenger is determined by the vehicular cabin monitoring system by comparing the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger to the proper posture stored in memory [E.g. 0031-0034, 0065-0069, 0019].
For claim 40, Magana further teaches wherein an alert is generated responsive to the determined posture of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger being different than the proper posture stored in memory by at least a threshold amount [E.g. 0031-0037, 0059, 0018, Fig. 6 ].
For claim 42, Magana further teaches wherein posture of the passenger is determined based at least in part on a determined spinal position of the passenger relative to the passenger seat that is occupied by the passenger [E.g. 0031-0032, 0036, 0006, 0002].
For claim 43, Yoshizawa discloses wherein an alert is generated responsive to determination of a threshold degree of improper posture [E.g. 0124, 0015, 0132].
For claim 44, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the alert comprises actuation of a visible indicator that is viewable by the passenger of the vehicle [E.g. 0048, 0037, 0060, 0085, 0096, 0051].
For claim 45, Yoshizawa discloses wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the interior-viewing camera, determines attentiveness of the driver of the vehicle [E.g. 0073-0074, 0033, 0065]
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and further in view of Wang et al. (Wang; US 2022/0084316).
For claim 7, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein posture of the driver is determined based at least in part on a determined head position of the driver relative to a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Wang, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include wherein posture of the driver is determined based at least in part on a determined head position of the driver relative to a steering wheel of the vehicle [E.g. 0043-0045, claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Wang in order to further improve the accuracy of the driver posture detection by determine the head position relative to the steering wheel and thereby increase the reliability of the driver posture detection.
12. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and further in view of Lynam et al. (Lynam; US Pat. No. 9,126,525).
For claim 16, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka fails to expressly disclose wherein the visible indicator comprises an iconistic graphic overlay that is overlaid at video images displayed at a video display screen of the vehicle that is viewable by the occupant of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Lynam, it was well known in the art of vehicle indicators to include visible indicator that comprises an iconistic graphic overlay that is overlaid at video images displayed at a video display screen of a vehicle that is viewable by an occupant of the vehicle (E.g. Claims 15-16; Col 8, lines 52-60, Col 19, lines 12-28, Col 21, lines 48-50, Col 6, lines 43-65, Col 7, lines 27-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka with the teaching of Lynam in order to have an indicator that is easy for the driver to observe when looking at the rearview mirror and thereby increase the overall chance the driver observe the indicator and enhance the driver convenience.
For claim 17, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Lynam further teaches wherein the video display screen is disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle (E.g. Lynam; claims 15-16; Col 8, lines 52-60, Col 19, lines 12-28, Col 21, lines 48-50, Col 6, lines 43-65, Col 7, lines 27-65).
13. Claims 25 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Wang.
For claim 41, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein posture of the driver is determined based at least in part on a determined head position of the driver relative to a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Wang, it was well known in the art of monitoring drivers to include wherein posture of the driver is determined based at least in part on a determined head position of the driver relative to a steering wheel of the vehicle [E.g. 0043-0045, claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana with the teaching of Wang in order to further improve the accuracy of the driver posture detection by determine the head position relative to the steering wheel and thereby increase the reliability of the driver posture detection.
For claim 41, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claim 25.
14. Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka further in view of Magana and further in view of Lynam et al. (Lynam; US Pat. No. 9,126,525).
For claim 33, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana fails to expressly disclose wherein the visible indicator comprises an iconistic graphic overlay that is overlaid at video images displayed at a video display screen of the vehicle that is viewable by the passenger of the vehicle.
However, as shown by Lynam, it was well known in the art of vehicle indicators to include visible indicator that comprises an iconistic graphic overlay that is overlaid at video images displayed at a video display screen of a vehicle that is viewable by a passenger of the vehicle (E.g. Claims 15-16; Col 8, lines 52-60, Col 19, lines 12-28, Col 21, lines 48-50, Col 6, lines 43-65, Col 7, lines 27-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka and Magana with the teaching of Lynam in order to have an indicator that is easy for the driver to observe when looking at the rearview mirror and thereby increase the overall chance the driver observe the indicator and enhance the driver convenience.
For claim 34, Yoshizawa in view of Munaoka, Magana and Lynam further teaches wherein the video display screen is disposed at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle (E.g. Lynam; claims 15-16; Col 8, lines 52-60, Col 19, lines 12-28, Col 21, lines 48-50, Col 6, lines 43-65, Col 7, lines 27-65).
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571) 272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689