DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-26 of application 18/983,552, filed on 17-December-2024, are presented for examination. The IDS received on 19-September-2025 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after 16-March-2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
2.1 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2.2 Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breed et al (B1), USP 6,820,897.
2.3 B1 discloses:
Claim 1: A vehicular driver monitoring system [col. 3:ln(s) 8 (a Vehicle Interior Identification and Monitoring System (VIMS) for identifying and monitoring the contents of a vehicle)], the vehicular driver monitoring system comprising:
a camera disposed at an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driver monitoring system and viewing at least a portion of a driver of the vehicle [3:15 (The vehicle identification and monitoring system of this invention will control such systems based on the presence, size and position of vehicle occupants)], wherein the camera is operable to capture image data [5:57-60 (a charge-coupled device (a type of TV camera also referred to as a CCD array) or a CMOS device is used to receive the reflected light); 16:15 (To provide a single camera system that passes the requirements of FMVSS-208.)];
wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array having at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns [5:57-60 (a charge-coupled device (a type of TV camera also referred to as a CCD array) or a CMOS device is used to receive the reflected light)] (*It is noted that all digital image sensors such as cameras use CMOS, and CMOS have arrays and rows and columns. Simply using a technology is “Intended Use”, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)); 19:5-15 (transducers 131 and 133 can be CMOS, CCD imagers or other devices sensitive to electromagnetic radiation or fields.)].
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software [16:65 (FIG. 7A is a functional block diagram of the ultrasonic imaging system illustrated in FIG. 1 using a microprocessor, DSP or field programmable gate array (FGPA).)];
wherein image data captured by the camera is transferred to and is processed at the ECU [5:17-22 (The signals processed are generally electrical signals coming from transducers which are sensitive to either acoustic or electromagnetic radiation and if electromagnetic, they can be either visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, radar or other part of the electromagnetic spectrum, or electric or magnetic fields.)];
wherein the vehicular driving monitoring system, via processing at the ECU of image data captured by the camera and transferred to the ECU, determines location of the head of the driver within the interior cabin of the vehicle [14:38-42 (To monitor the position of the head and/or other parts of the vehicle driver and determine whether the driver is falling asleep or otherwise impaired and likely to lose control of the vehicle and to use that information to affect another vehicle system (i.e. seat)); 17:18 (a preferred mounting location for an occupant head detector)];
wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a configuration for a driver's seat of the vehicle based at least in part on the determined location of the head of the driver [11:13 (the claimed inventions are methods and arrangements for obtaining information about an object in a vehicle.); 12:6-10 (If the object is a seat, the information obtained about the seat may be an indication of the position of the seat, the position of the back cushion of the seat, the position of the bottom cushion of the seat, the angular orientation of the seat, and other seat parameters.); 14:34-37 (To determine the approximate location of the eyes of a driver and to use that information to control the position of the rear view mirrors of the vehicle and/or adjust the seat.)];
and wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system adjusts the driver's seat of the vehicle using the determined configuration for the driver's seat [10:16-19 (it is desirable to obtain information about an occupying item in a vehicle in order to control a component in the vehicle based on the characteristics of the occupying item.); 13:37-41 (To determine the position of a seat in the vehicle using sensors remote from the seat and to use that information in conjunction with a memory system and appropriate actuators to position the seat to a predetermined location.); 14:8-10 (To determine the position of the rear of an occupant's head and to use that information to control the position of the headrest.); 14:34-37 (To determine the approximate location of the eyes of a driver and to use that information to control the position of the rear view mirrors of the vehicle and/or adjust the seat.)].
Claim 2: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines the location of the head of the driver [11:13; 12:6-10; 14:8-10] responsive to determining that the driver of the vehicle does not have a profile comprising the determined configuration for the driver's seat [14:62-67 (To recognize a particular driver based on such factors as facial characteristics, physical appearance or other attributes (i.e. the driver’s profile is not previously stored) and to use this information to control another vehicle system such as the vehicle ignition, a security system, seat adjustment, or maximum permitted vehicle velocity, among others.)].
Claim 3: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines that the driver of the vehicle does not have a profile comprising the determined configuration for the driver's seat based on facial recognition [14:62-67 (To recognize a particular driver based on such factors as facial characteristics, physical appearance or other attributes and to use this information to control another vehicle system such as the vehicle ignition, a security system, seat adjustment, or maximum permitted vehicle velocity, among others.)].
Claim 4: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system generates a profile for the driver, and wherein the profile comprises the determined configuration for the driver's seat [14:62-67 (To recognize a particular driver based on such factors as facial characteristics, physical appearance or other attributes and to use this (stored) information to control another vehicle system such as the vehicle ignition, a security system, seat adjustment, or maximum permitted vehicle velocity, among others.)].
Claim 6: wherein the profile for the driver is stored at the vehicle [49:57-59 (the system includes location determining means coupled to the processor means for determining the location of the occupying item)].
Claim 7: wherein the profile for the driver is stored at a database remote from the vehicle and in wireless communication with the vehicle [14:16-21 (To determine the total number of occupants of a vehicle and in the event of an accident to transmit that information, as well as other information such as the condition of the occupants before, during and/or after a crash, to a receiver remote from the vehicle, such information may include images.)].
Claim 8: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines weight of the driver, and wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines the configuration for the driver's seat based in part on the determined weight of the driver [10:24-26 (When the occupying item is human, in some instances the information about the occupying item can be the occupant's position, size and weight. Each of these properties can have an effect on the control criteria of the component.)].
Claim 10: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines the configuration for the driver's seat based on a prediction from a machine learning model [25:33-26:61 (pattern recognition rules using trained neural networks)].
Claim 11: wherein the machine learning model is further trained on a manual adjustment of the driver's seat by the driver [26:14-22 (Through a training session, the system is taught to differentiate between the different cases.)].
Claim 12: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a configuration for a mirror reflective element of a rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle based at least in part on the determined location of the head of the driver [3:5-62 (once a Vehicle Interior Identification and Monitoring System (VIMS) for identifying and monitoring the contents of a vehicle is in place, many other products become possible including the rear view mirrors can be automatically adjusted for the driver's eye location); 14:34-37 (To determine the approximate location of the eyes of a driver and to use that information to control the position of the rear view mirrors of the vehicle and/or adjust the seat)].
Claim 13: wherein the mirror reflective element is adjusted relative to the driver using the determined configuration for the mirror reflective element [3:62; 14:34-37].
Claim 14: wherein the rearview mirror assembly comprises an interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle [15:65-67 (To provide an interior monitoring system which provides three-dimensional information about an occupying item from a single transducer mounting location.);
16:11 (To provide for a driver monitoring system using an imaging transducer mounted on the
rear view mirror.); 18:23-25 (FIG. 21 illustrates the interior of a passenger compartment with a rear view mirror, and a camera for viewing the eyes of the driver)].
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3.1 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering the objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
3.2 Claims 5, 9 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al (B1), USP 6,820,897, in view of Breed et al (B2), USP Publication 2012/0001463.
3.3 B1 discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not specifically disclose all of the features of claims 5, 9 and 15-17. However, in an analogous prior art reference in the same field of endeavor and/or reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved, B2 describes these features, including:
Claim 5: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system, responsive to a manual adjustment of the driver's seat by the driver, updates the profile for the driver [B2:¶1033 (an automatic adjustment system coupled to the processor for positioning the seat based on the morphological characteristic(s) measured by the measuring apparatus (if and when a change in positioning is required), a manual adjustment system coupled to the processor manually operable for permitting movement of the seat and an actuatable occupant protection device for protecting the occupant.); 2939 (Although it has been described herein that the seat can be automatically adjusted to place the driver's eyes in the "eye-ellipse", there are many manual methods that can be implemented with feedback to the driver telling him or her when his or her eyes are properly position. At least one of the inventions disclosed herein is not limited by the use of automatic methods.)].
Claim 9: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines the weight of the driver based on a pressure sensor disposed at the driver's seat [B2:0960 (The seat portion is provided with one or more pressure or weight sensors that determine the weight of the object occupying the seat or the pressure applied by the object to the seat.); 0713].
Claim 15: wherein the rearview mirror assembly comprises a side-mounted exterior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle [B2:0241 (the morphological characteristics of a driver are determined, for example by measuring his or her height and weight, the component such as the seat can be adjusted and other features or components can be incorporated into the system including, for example, the automatic adjustment of the rear view and/or side mirrors based on seat position and occupant height.); 0361 ((ii) the locating of the eyes of the occupant (driver) to permit automatic adjustment of the rear view mirror(s) *(i.e. plural mirrors, which would include interior and exterior mirrors))].
Claim 16: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines the configuration for the driver's seat of the vehicle based in part on a request from the driver [B2:1033 (a manual adjustment system coupled to the processor manually operable for permitting movement of the seat and an actuatable occupant protection device for protecting the occupant.); 2939 (there are many manual methods that can be implemented with feedback to the driver telling him or her when his or her eyes are properly position)].
Claim 17: wherein the vehicular driver monitoring system determines a configuration for a display based at least in part on the determined location of the head of the driver and the determined configuration for the driver's seat [0361 (The applications for this technology are numerous, including (iii) the location of the seat to place the occupant's eyes at the proper position to eliminate the parallax in a heads-up display in night vision systems)].
In regard to claim 18, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 12, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 19, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 20, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 21, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 4, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 22, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 13, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 23, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 24, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 10, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 25, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 11, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
In regard to claim 26, the limitations of this claim were discussed in the rejection of claim 16, and are therefore considered rejected for the reasons as set forth above.
3.4 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle object detection system as described by Breed (B1), with the vehicular restraint control system as disclosed by Breed (B2), because doing so would provide an occupant out-of-position sensor for determining the position of an occupant of a motor vehicle by adapting such sensor to a particular vehicle model, in order to obtain high system accuracy employing operative and effective pattern recognition technologies that are believed to be essential to accurate occupant sensing, with a reasonably predictable expectation of success [B2:0135].
Prior Art
4. The following prior art, discovered in an updated search and herein made of record, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and consists of documents A-G on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Document A defines a document of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone.
Documents B-D define documents of particular relevance, wherein the claimed invention cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one or more other such documents, such combination being obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Documents E-G define the general state of the art which is not considered to be of particular relevance.
Prior Art of Record
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. [SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123].
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966)]. Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference [See In re Freda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963)]. Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art [See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973)]. Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references [See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)].
Response Guidelines
6.1 A shortened statutory period for response to this non-final action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) days from the date of this letter. Unless the applicant is notified in writing that a reply is required in less than six months (see the shortened response period previously noted), a maximum period of six months is allowed, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed [see MPEP 710 and 35 U.S.C. 133]. Failure to respond within the required period for response will cause the application to become abandoned [see MPEP 710.02, 710.02(b)].
6.2 Any response to the Examiner in regard to this non-final action should be
directed to: Russell Frejd, telephone number (571) 272-3779, Monday-Friday from 0730 to
1600 ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful,
please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan, who can be reached at
(571) 270-7016.
mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
faxed to: (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.
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.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to the Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314.
/RUSSELL FREJD/
Primary Examiner AU 3661