Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 13, 18 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“more than_one” in claim 13 should be corrected to “more than one”. Appropriate correction is required.
“determine the hand position based at least in part on the image data using the human pose estimation method, determines the hand position” in claim 18 is not clear and looks incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
“wherein the known movement patterns are in stored in the storage area of the processing unit” in claim 25 should be corrected to “wherein the known movement patterns are
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear what applicant means by “wherein at the period of time is stored preset in the storage area of the processing unit.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 12-16, 19-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KATZ (US 2024/0362931).
As per claim 12, KATZ disclose a device for detecting a distraction of a vehicle driver (paragraph 0036) located on a driver seat of a vehicle (FIG. 8), comprising:
at least one camera supported by the vehicle, the at least one camera configured to capture at least one image having a depiction of an area of a vehicle interior comprising at least one arm of a vehicle driver and to generate image data corresponding to the image (paragraph 0062, the at least one sensor may be at least one image sensor such as at least one camera in the vehicle…The information received from the at least one sensor may be associated with an interior area of the vehicle…the information may be image information associated with a position of the driver's hand(s) on a steering wheel of the vehicle or a relative position of the driver's hand(s) to the steering wheel; see also FIG. 7E and paragraph 0184 regarding detecting driver’s arms 105 locations),
at least one processing unit configured to process the image data (paragraph 0188),
wherein the processing unit is further configured to determine a position of the at least one arm of the vehicle driver and a hand position of a hand of the at least one arm based at least in part on the image data (FIG. 8; paragraph 0189, the processor may track one or more vectors A1, B1-B2, C1, D1 of the motion of different part of the driver's body, such as the hand 810, elbow, shoulder, etc. of driver 800; see also FIG. 7E and paragraph 0184 regarding detecting driver’s arms 105 locations),
wherein at least one device position of a possible location for arranging a terminal introduced into the vehicle in a cockpit of the vehicle is stored in a storage area of the processing unit (paragraph 0189, the processor may detect a location of the device, such as device 300, mobile phone 301, sunglass pouch 302, sunglasses 303, or bag 304; paragraph 0249 teaches that locations of the device become part of the historical data; see also paragraph 0041. Paragraphs 0150-0151 also teach that information associated with at least one control boundary, which relate to physical location of the device, is stored in memory 16), and
wherein the processing unit is further configured to check whether the determined hand position of the vehicle driver corresponds with the device position (FIG. 8; paragraph 0186, the processor may detect the gesture that indicates a driver's intention to pick up the mobile device by detecting the location of the mobile device in the vehicle and detecting a gesture that correlates to or indicates a gesture of reaching toward a mobile device that is in the location where the mobile device is located; paragraph 00189, the processor may detect a sequence of gestures/motion vectors such as vectors B1, B2, wherein the first gesture (B1) represents the driver 800, for example, lowering his hand from the steering wheel 820, and then the hand is stopped for T seconds before another gesture starts (B2). The processor may predict the intention of the driver 800 to pick up a device based on the first gesture B1, without waiting until the driver will perform the following gesture B2…the processor may determine or predict the intention of driver 800 to pick up a device by detecting a subset of a whole gesture of reaching a hand, such as hand 810, toward a device or by detecting the beginning of the gesture toward the device).
As per claim 13, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein:
device positions of a large number of possible locations are stored in the storage area of the processing unit (paragraph 0249 teaches that locations of the device become part of the historical data; see also paragraph 0041. Paragraphs 0150-0151 also teach that information associated with at least one control boundary, which relate to physical location of the device, is stored in memory 16), and
the processing unit is further configured to check whether the determined hand position of the vehicle driver corresponds with more than one of the device positions (FIG. 8; paragraph 0186, the processor may detect the gesture that indicates a driver's intention to pick up the mobile device by detecting the location of the mobile device in the vehicle and detecting a gesture that correlates to or indicates a gesture of reaching toward a mobile device that is in the location where the mobile device is located; paragraph 0189, the processor may detect a location of the device, such as device 300, mobile phone 301, sunglass pouch 302, sunglasses 303, or bag 304…the processor may detect a sequence of gestures/motion vectors such as vectors B1, B2, wherein the first gesture (B1) represents the driver 800, for example, lowering his hand from the steering wheel 820, and then the hand is stopped for T seconds before another gesture starts (B2). The processor may predict the intention of the driver 800 to pick up a device based on the first gesture B1, without waiting until the driver will perform the following gesture B2…the processor may determine or predict the intention of driver 800 to pick up a device by detecting a subset of a whole gesture of reaching a hand, such as hand 810, toward a device or by detecting the beginning of the gesture toward the device).
As per claim 14, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
determine a course of a viewing direction of at least one eye of the vehicle driver based at least in part on the image data (FIG. 8; paragraph 0185, the processor may be configured to detect the driver's gaze from received image information, or track the user's gaze in the received image information; paragraph 0189, the processor may use information indicating the gaze direction 500, 501 of the driver 800 and change of gaze of the driver 800), and
check whether the viewing direction extends through one or more of the device positions (FIG. 8; paragraph 0189, the processor may use information indicating the gaze direction 500, 501 of the driver 800 and change of gaze of the driver 800, for example, toward device 501 as sufficient information to determine or predict that the driver 800 has the intention of picking up device 501).
As per claim 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 14 are applicable for claim 15.
As per claim 16, the claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "detect a distraction if the hand position corresponds with the device position within a preset period of time and the viewing direction of the vehicle driver extends through the device position." That is, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the hand position does not correspond with the device position within a preset period of time or the viewing direction of the vehicle driver does not extend through the device position. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 19, the claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "detect a distraction if the hand position corresponds multiple times with the device position within a preset period of time." That is, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the hand position does not correspond multiple times with the device position within a preset period of time. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 20, this claim is related to the condition limitation of claim 19; therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 19 are applicable for claim 20.
As per claim 21, the claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "detect a distraction if the hand position corresponds with the device position for a preset period of time." That is, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the hand position does not correspond with the device position for a preset period of time. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claim 22, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 21, wherein, in the storage area of the processing unit, a cockpit position of at least one input and/or output unit of the vehicle is stored, which is arranged at the device position or which is arranged at a distance of up to 5 cm from the device position or which is associated in a preset manner with a device position (paragraph 0150 teaches that information associated with at least one control boundary is stored in memory 16 and paragraphs 0152 and 0196 teach that the control boundary may relate to physical objects or devices located temporarily or permanently in a vehicle… Physical objects may also include objects associated with the vehicle, such as a multimedia system, steering wheel, shift lever or gear selector, display device, or mirrors located in the vehicle, glove compartment, sun-shade, light controller, air-condition shades, windows, seat, or any interface device in the vehicle that may be controlled or used by the driver or passenger. Such objects may be considered “permanently located” in the vehicle because they are physically integrated in the vehicle, installed, or attached such that they are not easily removable by the user; see also paragraph 0196), and
wherein the processing unit is configured to only detect the distraction if, in a period of time in which the hand position corresponds with the device position, the processing unit does not detect operating inputs via the input unit arranged at the cockpit position (this is a conditional limitation. The claim does not require detection of distraction if the processing unit detects operating inputs via the input unit arranged at the cockpit position in a period of time in which the hand position corresponds with the device position. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claim 23, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 21, wherein, in the storage area of the processing unit, a cockpit position of at least one input and/or output unit of the vehicle is stored, which is arranged at the device position or which is arranged at a distance of up to 5 cm from the device position or which is associated in a preset manner with a device position (paragraph 0150 teaches that information associated with at least one control boundary is stored in memory 16 and paragraphs 0152 and 0196 teach that the control boundary may relate to physical objects or devices located temporarily or permanently in a vehicle… Physical objects may also include objects associated with the vehicle, such as a multimedia system, steering wheel, shift lever or gear selector, display device, or mirrors located in the vehicle, glove compartment, sun-shade, light controller, air-condition shades, windows, seat, or any interface device in the vehicle that may be controlled or used by the driver or passenger. Such objects may be considered “permanently located” in the vehicle because they are physically integrated in the vehicle, installed, or attached such that they are not easily removable by the user; see also paragraph 0196), and
wherein the processing unit is configured to only detect the distraction if, the processing unit determines that no warning message is output via the at least one output unit arranged at the cockpit position (this is a conditional limitation. The claim does not require detection of distraction if the processing unit does not determine that no warning message is output via the at least one output unit arranged at the cockpit position. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claim 24, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the processing unit is configured to:
use image data of multiple images recorded in succession by the camera to determine an image sequence of a movement of at least one of group consisting of the arm and the hand of the vehicle driver (paragraph 0100, tracking may involve monitoring a change in location of a particular object in captured or received image information. The processor may also be configured to detect a speed, smoothness, direction, motion path, continuity, location and/or size of components associated with the gesture, such as hands, fingers, other body parts, or objects moved by the user; see also paragraphs 0186, 0189 and 0198),
determine an operation of a terminal introduced into the vehicle based on known movement patterns (paragraph 0189 and 0191),
wherein the processing unit only detects the distraction when the processing unit determines the operation of the terminal introduced into the vehicle in the period of time in which the hand position corresponds with the device position (this is a conditional limitation. The claim does not require detection of distraction when the processing unit does not determine the operation of the terminal introduced into the vehicle in the period of time in which the hand position corresponds with the device position. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require detection of distraction if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claim 25, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 24, wherein the known movement patterns are in stored in the storage area of the processing unit and/or are used for training an artificial neural network of the processing unit (paragraph 0186 and 0188).
As per claim 26, this claim depends on claim 20 that is related to the condition limitation of claim 19; therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 19 are applicable for claim 26.
As per claim 28, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein, a field of view of the camera has a capture angle in a range of 100° to 150°, wherein the camera only captures a part of the cockpit (see FIGs. 3-4; paragraphs 0124-0125).
As per claim 29, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 28, wherein the camera is at least one of the group consisting of a monocular camera and an RGB camera (paragraph 0092).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim(s) 17-18, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATZ (US 2024/0362931) in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0080475) hereinafter “Lee”.
As per claim 17, KATZ disclose the device as claimed in claim 12; however, KATZ does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing unit is configured to: determine the position of the at least one arm based at least in part on the image data using a human pose estimation method, and determine the hand position based at least in part on the position of the at least one arm of the vehicle driver.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses a processing unit is configured to: determine the position of the at least one arm based at least in part on the image data using a human pose estimation method (paragraph 0110), and determine the hand position based at least in part on the position of the at least one arm of the vehicle driver (FIG. 15A-C and paragraph 0117; see also FIG. 16 and paragraph 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of KATZ in view of Lee, by using human pose estimation (HPE) method to determine and track body parts positions and movements. HPE is known for its advantage of reducing reliance on expensive motion capture systems and enabling scalable, low-cost solutions using standard cameras. Furthermore, HPE enables precise, real-time understanding of human movement and improves performance. This rationale applied to all combination of KATZ and Lee used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 18, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 17 are applicable for claim 18.
As per claim 27, KATZ and Lee disclose the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the processing unit is configured to,
based at least in part on the image data of the image, detects the hand of the vehicle driver in the image and, based at least in part on further image data of multiple images of an image sequence recorded in succession by the camera, carries out tracking of the hand (KATZ: paragraph 0100, tracking may involve monitoring a change in location of a particular object in captured or received image information. The processor may also be configured to detect a speed, smoothness, direction, motion path, continuity, location and/or size of components associated with the gesture, such as hands, fingers, other body parts, or objects moved by the user; see also paragraphs 0186, 0189 and 0198) and detects at which position the hand leaves the image (KATZ: while paragraphs 0186, 0189 and 0198 teach location detection and tracking of user’s hand, FIG. 3 and paragraph 0160 teach that user’s hand 32 can be outside of the FOV defined by the lines GJ and GF; therefore, one of the detected positions corresponds to the position of point J where the hand leaves the FOV as shown in FIG. 3) and, based at least in part on following movement of the arm, determines the hand position (Lee: FIG. 15A-C and paragraph 0117; see also FIG. 16 and paragraph 0121) in the vehicle interior (see FIG. 8 of KATZ).
As per claim 30, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 12 and the second limitation of claim 17 are applicable for claim 30.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20210012126-A1, US-20200012872-A1, US-20190318181-A1, US-20220375265-A1, US-20180231976-A1, US-20210307621-A1, US-20220076040-A1, US-11847840-B2, US-9330470-B2, US-10407079-B1, DE-102018219672-A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights