Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, and 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable comprises:” which is suggested to be amended to “wherein determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data comprises:”.
Claims 5-7 and 14 are additionally objected to for the same reason as claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “the method of claim 1, determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable” which is suggested to be amended to “the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are 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.
Claim 17 recites “determining a difference metric between the distribution metric of the first radar data and second radar data associated with a target zone” which renders the claim indefinite. It appears that the claim should be amended to “determining a difference metric between the distribution metric of the first radar data and a distribution metric of the second radar data associated with a target zone”.
Claim 18 recites “the mean for the first radar data, and the mean metric for the second radar data” which renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim 1:
A method comprising: computing a difference metric between first sensed data and second sensed data, wherein the first sensed data is associated with a first region in a field of view of a sensor, and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view; determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data using the difference metric; and detecting occupancy in the first region in response to determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data.
Independent claim 12:
At least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause programmable circuitry to at least: compute a difference metric between first sensed data and second sensed data, wherein the first sensed data is associated with a first region in a field of view of a sensor, and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view; determine that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data using the difference metric; and detect occupancy in the first region in response to determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data.
Independent claim 17:
A method comprising: determining a distribution metric of first radar data associated with a reference zone; determining a difference metric between the distribution metric of the first radar data and second radar data associated with a target zone; and detecting occupancy in the target zone using the difference metric.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Independent claim 1 recites a method and therefore is a process. Independent claim 12 recites a storage medium and therefore is a machine/ manufacture. Independent claim 17 recites a method and therefore is a process. As such, the claims are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and are eligible for further analysis.
Independent claims 12 and 17 will not be evaluated separately because the claims contain the same defects as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “computing a difference metric between first sensed data and second sensed data; determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data using the difference metric; and detecting occupancy in the first region in response to determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable from the second sensed data”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, mathematical functions, optimization, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). MPEP § 2106.4(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations”. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A), “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.” When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the limitations are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation of “wherein the first sensed data is associated with a first region in a field of view of a sensor, and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view” is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and is merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The additional limitation of “wherein the first sensed data is associated with a first region in a field of view of a sensor, and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and furthermore, can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to particular field of use and technological environment of radar detection, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The recitation of these claim limitation(s) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”, as implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the component(s) does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.04(d) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) (“The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point”).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the mathematical concept itself.
The additional limitation of “wherein the first sensed data is associated with a first region in a field of view of a sensor, and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view” is at a high level of generality. The limitation is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of the claim and does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 12, and 17 are not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
No. Claims 2-11, and 18-20 recite a method and therefore fall under a process. Claims 13-16 recite a storage medium and therefore fall under a machine/ manufacture.
Claims 3-11, 13-16, and 18-20 will not be evaluated separately because the claims contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept. The additional limitations do not amount to significantly more. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20210097244 A “KIM”), in view of Cao et al. (US 2016/0041260 A1 “CAO”).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses (Examiner’s note: What KIM does not disclose is ) a method comprising: first region in a field of view of a sensor (the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [0013]); (red squares [FIG. 3]), and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view (sections corresponding to the vehicle's frame (blue squares) are set in the distance-angle map [0018 & FIG. 3]); determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable in the zones (red squares) set for each seat in the distance-each map, when there is a person, the center (black square part) has the strongest signal strength and shows a spreading shape (dark gray and light gray parts) as the signal strength gradually decreases [0017]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CAO teaches that different speed components (different Doppler frequency components) are generated at individual portions of the body, and the Doppler spread thereof is greater than that of objects, such as vehicles and buildings [0049]. Comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [0157].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CAO, because doing so would reliably and individually sense and detect a plurality of objects, as recognized by CAO.
Regarding claim 2, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein no occupancy is expected in the second region (sections corresponding to the vehicle's frame (blue squares) are set in the distance-angle map [KIM 0018 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, KIM, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CAO teaches that the object separator 554 may determine the boundary between the first range bin r1 and the second range bin r2, by using the condition that the difference between representative values (e.g., average values) of the normalized direction correlation values for adjacent range bins (or adjacent two regions) exceeds a third threshold [0094]. Based on the result of the determination, the object separator 554 separates the region R into a first range bin r1 (a first region) in which the vehicle 111 (a first object) is present and a second range bin r2 (a second region) in which the pedestrian 112 (a second object) is present [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CAO, because doing so would reliably and individually sense and detect a plurality of objects, as recognized by CAO.
Regarding claim 5, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable comprises determining that the first sensed data is anomalous compared to the second sensed data using the difference metric (comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [CAO 0157], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable comprises determining that the first sensed data is distinct from the second sensed data using the difference metric (comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [CAO 0157], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, determining that the first sensed data is distinguishable comprises determining that the first sensed data is an outlier compared to the second sensed data using the difference metric (comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [CAO 0157], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: computing first Doppler data using the first sensed data; and computing second Doppler data using the second sensed data, wherein computing the difference metric comprises computing the difference metric between the first Doppler data and the second Doppler data (different speed components (different Doppler frequency components) are generated at individual portions of the body, and the Doppler spread thereof is greater than that of objects, such as vehicles and buildings [CAO 0049], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, KIM discloses at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause programmable circuitry (radar signal processing unit [0006]) to at least: the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [0013]); (red squares [FIG. 3]), and wherein second sensed data is associated with a second region in the field of view (sections corresponding to the vehicle's frame (blue squares) are set in the distance-angle map [0018 & FIG. 3]); determine that the first sensed data is distinguishable in the zones (red squares) set for each seat in the distance-each map, when there is a person, the center (black square part) has the strongest signal strength and shows a spreading shape (dark gray and light gray parts) as the signal strength gradually decreases [0017]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CAO teaches that different speed components (different Doppler frequency components) are generated at individual portions of the body, and the Doppler spread thereof is greater than that of objects, such as vehicles and buildings [0049]. Comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [0157].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CAO, because doing so would reliably and individually sense and detect a plurality of objects, as recognized by CAO.
Regarding claim 14, KIM, as modified, discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CAO teaches that the object separator 554 may determine the boundary between the first range bin r1 and the second range bin r2, by using the condition that the difference between representative values (e.g., average values) of the normalized direction correlation values for adjacent range bins (or adjacent two regions) exceeds a third threshold [0094]. Based on the result of the determination, the object separator 554 separates the region R into a first range bin r1 (a first region) in which the vehicle 111 (a first object) is present and a second range bin r2 (a second region) in which the pedestrian 112 (a second object) is present [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CAO, because doing so would reliably and individually sense and detect a plurality of objects, as recognized by CAO.
Regarding claim 15, KIM/ CAO discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions are to cause the programmable circuitry to: compute first Doppler data using the first sensed data; and compute second Doppler data using the second sensed data, wherein computing the difference metric comprises computing the difference metric between the first Doppler data and the second Doppler data (different speed components (different Doppler frequency components) are generated at individual portions of the body, and the Doppler spread thereof is greater than that of objects, such as vehicles and buildings [CAO 0049], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 17, KIM discloses a method comprising: sections corresponding to the vehicle's frame (blue squares) are set in the distance-angle map [0018 & FIG. 3]); determining the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [0013]); (red squares [FIG. 3]); and detecting occupancy in the target zone in the zones (red squares) set for each seat in the distance-each map, when there is a person, the center (black square part) has the strongest signal strength and shows a spreading shape (dark gray and light gray parts) as the signal strength gradually decreases [0017]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CAO teaches that comparison between rectangular regions 714 and 715 shows that normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the pedestrian is present has a larger value over a wider Doppler frequency range than that of the normalized direction correlation value for the cell in which the vehicle is present. This is due to the human characteristic that Doppler spread of the human is greater than those of vehicles and buildings [0157].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CAO, because doing so would reliably and individually sense and detect a plurality of objects, as recognized by CAO.
Claim(s) 3, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, in view of CAO, and further in view of Price et al. (US 5,592,170 A “PRICE”).
Regarding claim 3, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PRICE teaches that the presence of a targets or anomalies is accomplished using a statistic referred to as the Mahalanobis distance. The Mahalanobis distance is defined with the equation: Z2=(X-μs)'Σ-1 (X-μs) where Z2 is the Mahalanobis distance of X from the background; μs is a 36×1 vector where the components of the vector are the means of the natural logarithms of the power spectrum for the 36 frequencies, defined above; and Σ is the covariance matrix for the logs of the spectrum [col. 14, lines 14-23 & Eq. (4)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of PRICE, because doing so would improve target detection and classification, as recognized by PRICE.
Regarding claim 13, KIM/ CAO discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PRICE teaches that the presence of a targets or anomalies is accomplished using a statistic referred to as the Mahalanobis distance. The Mahalanobis distance is defined with the equation: Z2=(X-μs)'Σ-1 (X-μs) where Z2 is the Mahalanobis distance of X from the background; μs is a 36×1 vector where the components of the vector are the means of the natural logarithms of the power spectrum for the 36 frequencies, defined above; and Σ is the covariance matrix for the logs of the spectrum [col. 14, lines 14-23 & Eq. (4)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of PRICE, because doing so would improve target detection and classification, as recognized by PRICE.
Regarding claim 18, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 17,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PRICE teaches that the presence of a targets or anomalies is accomplished using a statistic referred to as the Mahalanobis distance. The Mahalanobis distance is defined with the equation: Z2=(X-μs)'Σ-1 (X-μs) where Z2 is the Mahalanobis distance of X from the background; μs is a 36×1 vector where the components of the vector are the means of the natural logarithms of the power spectrum for the 36 frequencies, defined above; and Σ is the covariance matrix for the logs of the spectrum [col. 14, lines 14-23 & Eq. (4)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of PRICE, because doing so would improve target detection and classification, as recognized by PRICE.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, in view of CAO, and further in view of Emadi et al. (US 2023/0350019 A1 “EMADI”).
Regarding claim 9, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, EMADI teaches that radar data is obtained and processed by, e.g., adaptive clustering system 120. Once the points are clustered in accordance with embodiments described herein, a median (or mean) (e.g., A1) is calculated 502 of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the points in the cluster, which in certain embodiments may be performed by outlier identifier 226. In an embodiment, to calculate the median (or mean) of the SNR for a cluster, outlier identifier 226 collects the SNR values of all the points within the given cluster. Outlier identifier 226 uses either the median or mean SNR value, depending on the chosen method, to identify and remove outlier points based on the predetermined SNR difference threshold [0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of EMADI, because doing so would improve radar data processing for enhanced object-tracking capabilities, as recognized by EMADI.
Regarding claim 16, KIM/ CAO discloses the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, EMADI teaches that radar data is obtained and processed by, e.g., adaptive clustering system 120. Once the points are clustered in accordance with embodiments described herein, a median (or mean) (e.g., A1) is calculated 502 of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the points in the cluster, which in certain embodiments may be performed by outlier identifier 226. In an embodiment, to calculate the median (or mean) of the SNR for a cluster, outlier identifier 226 collects the SNR values of all the points within the given cluster. Outlier identifier 226 uses either the median or mean SNR value, depending on the chosen method, to identify and remove outlier points based on the predetermined SNR difference threshold [0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of EMADI, because doing so would improve radar data processing for enhanced object-tracking capabilities, as recognized by EMADI.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, in view of CAO, and further in view of Caron et al. (US 2019/0210615 A1 “CARON”).
Regarding claim 10, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor is an in-cabin vehicle radar, the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [KIM 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (red squares [KIM FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CARON teaches that the radar assembly 28 includes at least one radar transmit antenna 36 for transmitting radar waves 38 in the cabin 24 of the vehicle 20 and at exterior areas 40 outside the cabin 24 (e.g., near the side mirrors 30 or at the rear of the vehicle 20) [0031]. A baseline distance can be pre-established by the microcontroller 82 and stored in memory 58 (e.g., a distance without a hand 21 present in the hotspot zone 44). For example, a natural vehicle background can be used to establish a baseline reference distance, such as the armrest 23, a head rest 25, a center console 27, or other interior vehicle surfaces [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CARON, because doing so would improve object classification and sensing without requiring complex systems with complicated parts and controls, as recognized by CARON.
Regarding claim 19, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 17, the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [KIM 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 17); (red squares [KIM FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 17).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CARON teaches that the radar assembly 28 includes at least one radar transmit antenna 36 for transmitting radar waves 38 in the cabin 24 of the vehicle 20 and at exterior areas 40 outside the cabin 24 (e.g., near the side mirrors 30 or at the rear of the vehicle 20) [0031]. A baseline distance can be pre-established by the microcontroller 82 and stored in memory 58 (e.g., a distance without a hand 21 present in the hotspot zone 44). For example, a natural vehicle background can be used to establish a baseline reference distance, such as the armrest 23, a head rest 25, a center console 27, or other interior vehicle surfaces [0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of CARON, because doing so would improve object classification and sensing without requiring complex systems with complicated parts and controls, as recognized by CARON.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM, in view of CAO, and further in view of Sarely et al. (US 2021/0052176 A1 “SARELY”).
Regarding claim 11, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor is an in-cabin vehicle radar, wherein a passenger seat of a vehicle is within the first region (the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [KIM 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (red squares [KIM FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SARELY teaches a 2D top view projection of a 3D image, generated by a MIMO radar installed in the roof of the passenger cabin of the car. The image represents a single captured frame. A white rectangle has been added to indicate the boundary of the car interior. The specific scenario being shown is that of an adult sitting in the driver seat (top left corner of the white rectangle), an infant sitting in the passenger front seat (top right corner of the white rectangle), and another adult sitting in the right seat in the back row (bottom right corner of the white rectangle) [0128]. Furthermore, SARELY teaches that elements are grouped into targets, representing detected physical objects, by examining the spatial pattern of each element, producing a target list (item 42). In step 43 targets are classified, giving each target a label such as “background” (for example parts of a car interior), “adult”, “infant”, “pet” etc. (item 44). This classification is done by examining both the spatial pattern and the temporal displacement data for each element within the target [0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of SARELY, because doing so would improve target detection and accuracy, thereby enhancing vehicle safety features, as recognized by SARELY.
Regarding claim 20, KIM/ CAO discloses the method of claim 17, wherein a passenger seat of a vehicle is within the target zone (the radar signal processing system can generate a range-angle map based on (or from) the FMCW digital radar signal and set zones by seat in the range-angle map [KIM 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 17); (red squares [KIM FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 17),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SARELY teaches a 2D top view projection of a 3D image, generated by a MIMO radar installed in the roof of the passenger cabin of the car. The image represents a single captured frame. A white rectangle has been added to indicate the boundary of the car interior. The specific scenario being shown is that of an adult sitting in the driver seat (top left corner of the white rectangle), an infant sitting in the passenger front seat (top right corner of the white rectangle), and another adult sitting in the right seat in the back row (bottom right corner of the white rectangle) [0128]. Furthermore, SARELY teaches that elements are grouped into targets, representing detected physical objects, by examining the spatial pattern of each element, producing a target list (item 42). In step 43 targets are classified, giving each target a label such as “background” (for example parts of a car interior), “adult”, “infant”, “pet” etc. (item 44). This classification is done by examining both the spatial pattern and the temporal displacement data for each element within the target [0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KIM to include the teachings of SARELY, because doing so would improve target detection and accuracy, thereby enhancing vehicle safety features, as recognized by SARELY.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loce et al. (US 2016/0092733 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of detecting at least one empty seat within the scene-of-interest and associating the seat as being unoccupied and the frame as a reference frame. The method includes extracting reference features describing a region of the unoccupied seat in the reference frame and quantifying the reference features to form a reference feature vector. The method includes and determining a status of the seat in the given frame as being one of occupied and unoccupied based on the change in the feature vector.
Kostrun et al. (US 2019/0309974 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of an occupancy monitoring system. The occupancy monitoring system includes a thermal sensor configured to monitor a gate (e.g., entry way) to a space. The occupancy monitoring system determines whether there is a change in occupancy of the space based on changes to a first region (or first pixel cluster) of the pixel array and a second region (or second pixel cluster) of the pixel array over time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 September 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights